Electoral College. Just why?

[mvymvy]

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.

National Popular Vote IS states deciding to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

"There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[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, 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.

No. Please read slowly.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

What part don't you understand?

 

[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.

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.

No.
National Popular Vote is states exercising their "plenary" and "exclusive" authority over the manner of awarding their electoral votes.

 

[imawhosure]

Don't know if anyone brought this up, but the reason for the electoral college was to insure that if there was more than 2 candidates, someone could not win with less than them carrying a large amount of the states. Remember, the states are supposed to control the federal government according to the constitution not vice-versa.

So, what u could have is someone getting 30% of the vote, but getting more than the other 30 candidates running for President and being elected. That means that very rich people could get a large base of people, and run other candidates to muddy the waters splitting the vote. Thus, the electoral college. The states wanted to keep control of the process.

This is totally understandable unless you believe in more Washington insider power, and less states rights.

 

[mvymvy]

Don't know if anyone brought this up, but the reason for the electoral college was to insure that if there was more than 2 candidates, someone could not win with less than them carrying a large amount of the states. Remember, the states are supposed to control the federal government according to the constitution not vice-versa.

So, what u could have is someone getting 30% of the vote, but getting more than the other 30 candidates running for President and being elected. That means that very rich people could get a large base of people, and run other candidates to muddy the waters splitting the vote. Thus, the electoral college. The states wanted to keep control of the process.

This is totally understandable unless you believe in more Washington insider power, and less states rights.

With National Popular Vote, the Electoral College would still elect the President.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

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).

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).

 

[Skylar]

One Person, One Vote.

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

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

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

So it would be a completely voluntary system.

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

It doesn't matter what the agreement says. As there's no constitutional authority to enforce any violation. The State legislatures could, at any time up until the electors were actually seated, change their minds and choose a different method of selecting electors. As the authority belongs exclusively to the State legislatures. The state legislatures could ignore the vote of the people in their state now if they chose to. Its entire at their discretion.

For the compact to be constitutionally binding, you'd need an amendment. Thus, the bill is voluntary only. Its something that the legislatures can follow unless they don't want to.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void.

Obviously it wouldn't. As the state legislature changing its mind wouldn't be 'passing a law'. It would be directly exercising its unique and exclusive constitutional authority over the method of selection of its own electors. And select them in any manner they chose. The authority of the State legislature to assign electors is absolute. No state has authority to enforce standards of elector selection on another state. There's be no party with the constitutional authority to contest a violation. As the compact is non-binding. To create constitutionally binding compact, you'd need a constitutional amendment.

Without it the State Legislatures retain their unique authority over the selection of electors. An authority that can't be circumvented by any other government in the US system. The Feds have no say. No other state has any say. A state legislature can choose a method of selection and then arbitrarily change its mind. And change it again. And then again. Its only limit is one of time, where the seating of the electors cements those electors as members of the Electoral College.

Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

Nope. The feds have no role in the matter per the USSC itself. ' In such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct' is about as broad a brush as the constitution articulates. There is no constitutional role for the federal government, or the federal judiciary. As the USSC has already recognized that the State legislatures can change their mind, as the authority to select electors is retained exclusively and uniquely by each State legislature.

If the federal government was impacted by such state compact, then Congress would have had to have approved it per the constitution. The irrelevance of the federal government to the compact is why the States can enter into it without congressional approval. You can't have it both ways. Either the feds are involved....and your 'National Popular Vote' compact would require approval by congress. Or the feds aren't involved. And the States can enter into it without congressional input.

And congress has approved no 'National Popular Vote' compact. Establishing federal irrelevance to the process. Worse, the USSC has already found that the authority of the respective state legislatures over assignment of electors is absolute. And can be recalled by the State legislatures at will. This authority isn't bound to law or state constitutions.

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

The courts have found that the State legislatures can withdrawl authority from any vote they wish unilaterally and recall the power to select electors for the legislature itself. This citation of the Senate record was quoted by the Supreme Court when finding the plenary power of the State legislatures in assigning electors. And quoted again by Bush v. Gore in 2000 to make the same assertion:

"This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the States by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their State constitutions any more than can their power to elect Senators of the United States. Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated."

McPherson v. Blacker

And can, up until the electors are seated, choose another method. This almost happened in 2000 with the Florida State legislature scheduled to meet and simply assign the electors to Bush. Which would have been completely constitutional as the State is bound to no method for selecting electors under the constitution.

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

When it comes specifically to the authority of the state legislature to assign electors, the courts have found the State legislature's authority to be plenary. Or absolute. That authority is not bound by state constitution or by statute. There is no law that can override this authority. The only way to strip the state legislatures of the plenary authority is through constitutional amendment.

As no such amendment exists, the authority of the State legislatures remains absolute. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal government, beyond the jurisdiction of the State Constitution or State laws.

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

The important point to remember is that the state legislatures authority to assign electors is absolute. It is unbound by any law or state constitution.

And the USSC has found this repeatedly. Simply obliterating your argument.

 

[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.

No.
National Popular Vote is states exercising their "plenary" and "exclusive" authority over the manner of awarding their electoral votes.

The NPV is a childish, and frankly, offensive attempt to abrogate the rights of the people of the states.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

No. Please read slowly.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

What part don't you understand?

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.

No. Please read slowly.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

What part don't you understand?

Believe me, I understand the NPV, and the motivation behind it .....

Your statement categorically false, and can be proven by history. The Electoral College allowed a person to be elected President with less than a majority of the popular vote - 4 times. Your proposal prevents that .... ergo, you have subverted the will of the people.

In addition, if we assume that all the people in California voted for a single candidate, the NPV causes the will of the people in the 7 least populous states to be rendered moot.

The NPV is, simply, a canard designed to gut the authority of the states. The Federal government needs to stay out of the Electoral College issues. If you don't like the way it is in YOUR state, then change it .... but leave MINE alone.

 

[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.

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

You and I both know you cannot support this statement.

 

[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.

You and I both know you cannot support this statement.

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.

NationalPopularVote.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You and I both know you cannot support this statement.

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.
NationalPopularVote.com

Re-stating your claim is not support for your claim..

 

[mvymvy]

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.

No. Please read slowly.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

What part don't you understand?

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.

No. Please read slowly.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

What part don't you understand?

Believe me, I understand the NPV, and the motivation behind it .....

Your statement categorically false, and can be proven by history. The Electoral College allowed a person to be elected President with less than a majority of the popular vote - 4 times. Your proposal prevents that .... ergo, you have subverted the will of the people.

In addition, if we assume that all the people in California voted for a single candidate, the NPV causes the will of the people in the 7 least populous states to be rendered moot.

The NPV is, simply, a canard designed to gut the authority of the states. The Federal government needs to stay out of the Electoral College issues. If you don't like the way it is in YOUR state, then change it .... but leave MINE alone.

I have no idea what you think your "ergo" is supposed to be proving.

With National Popular Vote 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.

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).

NPV is states using their authority to choose how to award their electoral votes.

The Federal government has NOTHING TO DO with National Popular Vote.

 

[mvymvy]

Any attempt by a state to appoint presidential electors after the people vote on Election Day in November would be unconstitutional on its face because

(1) the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to establish the day for appointing presidential electors, and

(2) existing federal law specifies that presidential electors be appointed on a particular single day in each four-year election cycle (namely, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November).

Thus, no state may appoint presidential electors after the results become known from other states. This maneuver is equally impossible under both the National Popular Vote compact and the CURRENT state-by-state winner-take-all system.

If such a partisan post-election maneuver were legally possible, it would have already occurred under the current system on the numerous past occasions where a presidential candidate was not favored by a particular Governor and state legislature. This includes 2000, when Al Gore could have become President if any one of six Democratically-controlled states had repealed their state winner-take-all statute and instead appointed presidential electors supporting the winner of the national popular vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Oh look... the restatenent of the false premise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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).

You need to tell whoever updates the propaganda on your website that they are behind the times.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

Oh look... the restatenent of the false premise.

You can say "false premise" "false premise" all you like.

What I have said is what the bill would do.

 

[mvymvy]

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).

You need to tell whoever updates the propaganda on your website that they are behind the times.

What is outdated?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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).

You need to tell whoever updates the propaganda on your website that they are behind the times.

What is outdated?

Bush, 2000.
Funny you do not know that.

 

[mvymvy]

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).

You need to tell whoever updates the propaganda on your website that they are behind the times.

What is outdated?

Bush, 2000.
Funny you do not know that.

I said:
"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)."

"including" meant I would mention just some of them, as I did. I noted eight. It was not a complete listing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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).

You need to tell whoever updates the propaganda on your website that they are behind the times.

What is outdated?

Bush, 2000.
Funny you do not know that.

I said:
"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)."
"including" meant I would mention just some of them, as I did. I noted eight. It was not a complete listing.

You mean you copied the examples from some website, the authors of which either did not know the 2000 election fit into the category or did not feel the need to update the inforation once it happened.