Electoral College. Just why?

[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.

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.

Most Americans don't want to play the game, as it currently is.

Minority partyvoters in each state now have their votes 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.
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).

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

If presidential campaigns polled, organized, visited, and appealed to more than the current 20% of Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently 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.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

Successful candidates, in every other election in the country, won't and don't ignore 80% of their voters. Presidential candidates do.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.

80% of states are 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.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their 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. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

 

[mvymvy]

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

And candidates for governor don't totally ignore any voter in Texas.

In the 2012 presidential general election,
$2,570 was spent on ads in Texas (38 electoral votes), 0 campaign events.
$175,776,780 was spent in Florida, 40 campaign events.

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.

 

[mvymvy]

One more time:

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College.

 

[deaddogseye]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well you are entitled to your opinion and you are not alone but this is a pure legalism and for better or worse the founders decided to do it this way in the constitution. And you would have to amend the constitution to change it but the amendment would require the approval of a lot of the states that are protected by the electoral college which arguably gives greater say to the smaller states and that is why they wont allow a change. do away with it and presidential campaigns would be concentrated in the large population centers while ignoring most of the rest of the country. so its great to criticize but it sint going to change

 

[deaddogseye]

plus there have only been 2 - or is it 3? - elections (out of about 55?)where the popular vote winner wasn't also the winner of the electoral college so it isn't that big an issue really

 

[candycorn]

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

And candidates for governor don't totally ignore any voter in Texas.

In the 2012 presidential general election,
$2,570 was spent on ads in Texas (38 electoral votes), 0 campaign events.
$175,776,780 was spent in Florida, 40 campaign events.

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.

Yeah.

As you've been told about 30 times now, what you're prescribing won't deliver the outcome you are forecasting.

As shown on the images I posted earlier, at least a town like Des Moines is getting some attention. In your system, there won't be any attention paid to towns like Des Moines.

Re-cutting and re-pasting the same stuff over and over again won't change that.

 

[deaddogseye]

One more time:

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College.

But in substance it does abolish the electoral college. Also it almost certainly is unconstitutional because it would deny the states the right to award their electoral votes as they see fit. Unconstitutionality aside it will never ever happen for the same reason that there wont be a constitutional amendment -- the smaller states that enefit from it would never approve it

 

[mvymvy]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well you are entitled to your opinion and you are not alone but this is a pure legalism and for better or worse the founders decided to do it this way in the constitution. And you would have to amend the constitution to change it but the amendment would require the approval of a lot of the states that are protected by the electoral college which arguably gives greater say to the smaller states and that is why they wont allow a change. do away with it and presidential campaigns would be concentrated in the large population centers while ignoring most of the rest of the country. so its great to criticize but it sint going to change

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

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.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by 48 states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors.Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:
“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."

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

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.

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

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. Within those states the big cities 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.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

 

[mvymvy]

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

And candidates for governor don't totally ignore any voter in Texas.

In the 2012 presidential general election,
$2,570 was spent on ads in Texas (38 electoral votes), 0 campaign events.
$175,776,780 was spent in Florida, 40 campaign events.

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.

Yeah.

As you've been told about 30 times now, what you're prescribing won't deliver the outcome you are forecasting.

As shown on the images I posted earlier, at least a town like Des Moines is getting some attention. In your system, there won't be any attention paid to towns like Des Moines.

Re-cutting and re-pasting the same stuff over and over again won't change that.

The National Popular Vote will guarantee the election of the candidate with the most national popular votes.

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.

Of Course, when every vote in every state counts equally to each candidate's vote total, they will no longer be able to afford to ignore 80% of states and voters. No statewide candidate for governor of U.S. Senate ignores 80% of their voters.

FairVote, whose images you posted, supports National Popular Vote because of these political realities.

 

[mvymvy]

One more time:

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College.

But in substance it does abolish the electoral college. Also it almost certainly is unconstitutional because it would deny the states the right to award their electoral votes as they see fit. Unconstitutionality aside it will never ever happen for the same reason that there wont be a constitutional amendment -- the smaller states that enefit from it would never approve it

In substance, the Electoral College would elect the President. Period.

The Electoral College is the set of 538 dedicated party activists who elect the President.

The National Popular Vote bill IS the states using their constitutional right to award their electoral votes as they see fit. They are enacting legislation, replacing their current state winner-take-all method, and changing to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

Based on the current mix of states that have enacted the National Popular Vote compact, it could take about 25 states to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the compact.

.

 

[mvymvy]

plus there have only been 2 - or is it 3? - elections (out of about 55?)where the popular vote winner wasn't also the winner of the electoral college so it isn't that big an issue really

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."

 

[candycorn]

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.

Successful candidates, in every other election in the country, won't and don't ignore 80% of their voters. Presidential candidates do.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.

80% of states are 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.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their 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. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

Well, good luck I suppose. What you're prescribing fixes nothing which you say it will fix.

I know I'll get some cut and paste response but here it goes anyway....

Why do you think these 9-10 states are battle ground states? Its because they turn out. You would think that all of the states that have the advertising would be at the top of the list....Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania are in the bottom half of the list.

It's because the voters in those states are engaged and have some faith in the institution of Government itself. Of the states with the highest turnout, Obama won 17 out of 20. These are voters who feel that there is a role for the government.

 

[mvymvy]

Because of 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.

Voters in battleground states turnout because they are in battleground states. The candidates and the voters know their votes matter.

In 80% of states, that are not competitive in presidential elections, candidates and voters know their votes don't matter.
Republican votes in California will not help their presidential candidate.
Democratic votes in Texas won't help their presidential candidate.

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

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

The few battleground states are where the winner is not a foregone conclusion. Candidates in battleground states work for every vote, because the state is competitive, and the result matters.

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

 

[Spare_change]

Well, I guess you'd have to ask if you think direct election of senators was a good idea. Or if the State's electing them was better. If you think direct election of senators was the way to go, then fuck the electoral college. If you thought the States were foolish to give up that authority, then stick with it.

He said major topics, not politicians.

I'm directly addressing the topics. The electoral college is an expression of State power. The State legislatures used to select their electors directly. Just as they use do elect senators directly. They've given up the power to elect senators to the people. If you like the consequences of the states ceding power to the electorate, then it would make sense to continue this trend with more of the same: getting rid of the electoral college. As its an expression of state power.

If however you don't think the state ceding power to the electorate is a good idea, or you haven't liked the consequences of it so far......you may want to avoid doing more of the same by getting rid of the electoral college.

This has nothing to do with 'politicians'. But state power.

Unquestionably, the most perverted misuse of logic in the history of mankind.

 

[Spare_change]

Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The 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.

Here's where your logic goes awry .... "guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country" .... the issue isn't who wins the most popular votes in the COUNTRY - it's about who wins the most popular votes in the STATE. Just because you proposed an approach that pleased all the residents of California should NOT abrogate the wishes of the residents of our 7 smallest states (by population).

The National Popular Vote bill is another attempt by the federal government to usurp state rights.

It is, simply, ignorant to compare the methodology of a local election for dogcatcher, mayor, or even senator, to the election of an officer who is supposed to represent ALL the people. The dogcatcher, mayor, or even senator, is responsible for representing his constituency, not the whole country. The President, on the other hand, is supposed to represent all the people.

 

[Spare_change]

Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

False premise, that the popular vote and the EC vote must both have the same winner.
The people do not elect the President, and so the total popular vote has no procedural meaning.

National Popular Vote would guarantee that the winner of the national popular vote would win the Electoral College.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

... which would, in turn circumvent the intent, and the content of Article II of the Constitution.

 

[Spare_change]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Not much! If both goals were not met, we would have to pay for another election or three.

A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their 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.

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 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).

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.

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.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
- NationalPopularVote.com

"The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states. "

This statement is categorically, and provably, false.

 

[Spare_change]

Well, I guess you'd have to ask if you think direct election of senators was a good idea. Or if the State's electing them was better. If you think direct election of senators was the way to go, then fuck the electoral college. If you thought the States were foolish to give up that authority, then stick with it.

He said major topics, not politicians.

I'm directly addressing the topics. The electoral college is an expression of State power. The State legislatures used to select their electors directly. Just as they use do elect senators directly. They've given up the power to elect senators to the people. If you like the consequences of the states ceding power to the electorate, then it would make sense to continue this trend with more of the same: getting rid of the electoral college. As its an expression of state power.

If however you don't think the state ceding power to the electorate is a good idea, or you haven't liked the consequences of it so far......you may want to avoid doing more of the same by getting rid of the electoral college.

This has nothing to do with 'politicians'. But state power.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

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.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

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.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

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.

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

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

Sorry -- it is EXACTLY what the founding fathers envisioned ... to leave the states to decide.

 

[mvymvy]

Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The 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.

Here's where your logic goes awry .... "guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country" .... the issue isn't who wins the most popular votes in the COUNTRY - it's about who wins the most popular votes in the STATE. Just because you proposed an approach that pleased all the residents of California should NOT abrogate the wishes of the residents of our 7 smallest states (by population).

The National Popular Vote bill is another attempt by the federal government to usurp state rights.

It is, simply, ignorant to compare the methodology of a local election for dogcatcher, mayor, or even senator, to the election of an officer who is supposed to represent ALL the people. The dogcatcher, mayor, or even senator, is responsible for representing his constituency, not the whole country. The President, on the other hand, is supposed to represent all the people.

Analysts already say that, again, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

80% of states are 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.

National Popular Vote is not an attempt by the federal government to usurp state rights.
The federal government is not involved in the National Popular Vote bill.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II).
National Popular Vote is states exercising their rights to choose how to award their electoral votes.
States are enacting the bill in their state legislatures.

National Popular Vote would be a CHANGE. Who wins the most popular votes in the country WOULD determine the winner.

Elections are elections. One person, one vote. The candidate with the most votes wins.
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

The political reality is that 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.
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).

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.