Electoral College. Just why?

[mvymvy]

It's a check on the larger states.

As noted, I've noted, the current state-by-state winner-take-all electoral system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but later enacted by state laws) is NOT a guaranteed check on the larger states.

The 11 most populous states (with over 270 electoral votes), by themselves, containing 56% of the population of the United States, could determine the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

your talk of wasted votes gets me thinking that people should be more educated on that aspect as it could open the ground for third parties which the electorate say they want.

no democrat in Texas for example should waste their vote on a democrat if they can vote for a green....or, even help out a more rt-wing third party.

no republican in NewYork or California should vote for a republican...if they can vote for a constitutionalist or a libertarian, or even help out a more left-leaning party like the greens. .

With the current electoral system, votes for third party candidate usually are wasted.
Candidates don't get close to winning the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

In the 1992 election Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Ross Perot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ordinary plurality voting has the effect that a vote cast for a splinter candidate frequently produces the politically counter-productive effect of helping the major-party candidate whose views are diametrically opposite of those of the voter.

Minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). Candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states. Extremist candidacies as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won a substantial number of electoral votes in numerous states.

 

[Kosh]

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

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).

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."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

Yes, Obama won in nearly every of the only 12 contested states (while 80% of us were not politically relevant).

But, 2012 was not a landslide election.

"One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent." What Is a Landslide Election

% Popular Vote - Obama 51.1%, Romney 47.1%
# Popular Vote - Obama 65,915,796 - Romney 60,933,6000
# States won - Obama 26 + DC, Romney 24
Electoral Votes - Obama 332 - Romney 206

Yeah...whatever.

When you compete in 10 events and win 9 of them; that's a landslide.

50 states plus DC vote in U.S. presidential elections.
Winning 9 of 51 is not a landslide.

Obama won almost every state he competed in. It was a landslide.

The far left and their religious dogma.

 

[dcraelin]

It's a check on the larger states.

As noted, I've noted, the current state-by-state winner-take-all electoral system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but later enacted by state laws) is NOT a guaranteed check on the larger states.

The 11 most populous states (with over 270 electoral votes), by themselves, containing 56% of the population of the United States, could determine the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

your talk of wasted votes gets me thinking that people should be more educated on that aspect as it could open the ground for third parties which the electorate say they want.

no democrat in Texas for example should waste their vote on a democrat if they can vote for a green....or, even help out a more rt-wing third party.

no republican in NewYork or California should vote for a republican...if they can vote for a constitutionalist or a libertarian, or even help out a more left-leaning party like the greens. .

With the current electoral system, votes for third party candidate usually are wasted.
Candidates don't get close to winning the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

In the 1992 election Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Ross Perot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ordinary plurality voting has the effect that a vote cast for a splinter candidate frequently produces the politically counter-productive effect of helping the major-party candidate whose views are diametrically opposite of those of the voter.

Minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). Candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states. Extremist candidacies as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won a substantial number of electoral votes in numerous states.

well I think you missed the point....votes for the traditional losing party in those states are also wasted...so why not help to build third party opposition to the corrupt puppet partys.

a national vote option would I think harm even further third party efforts as nationwide campaigning would take more money.

 

[mvymvy]

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

Yes, Obama won in nearly every of the only 12 contested states (while 80% of us were not politically relevant).

But, 2012 was not a landslide election.

"One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent." What Is a Landslide Election

% Popular Vote - Obama 51.1%, Romney 47.1%
# Popular Vote - Obama 65,915,796 - Romney 60,933,6000
# States won - Obama 26 + DC, Romney 24
Electoral Votes - Obama 332 - Romney 206

Yeah...whatever.

When you compete in 10 events and win 9 of them; that's a landslide.

50 states plus DC vote in U.S. presidential elections.
Winning 9 of 51 is not a landslide.

Obama won almost every state he competed in. It was a landslide.

The far left and their religious dogma.

It's a check on the larger states.

As noted, I've noted, the current state-by-state winner-take-all electoral system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but later enacted by state laws) is NOT a guaranteed check on the larger states.

The 11 most populous states (with over 270 electoral votes), by themselves, containing 56% of the population of the United States, could determine the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

your talk of wasted votes gets me thinking that people should be more educated on that aspect as it could open the ground for third parties which the electorate say they want.

no democrat in Texas for example should waste their vote on a democrat if they can vote for a green....or, even help out a more rt-wing third party.

no republican in NewYork or California should vote for a republican...if they can vote for a constitutionalist or a libertarian, or even help out a more left-leaning party like the greens. .

With the current electoral system, votes for third party candidate usually are wasted.
Candidates don't get close to winning the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

In the 1992 election Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Ross Perot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ordinary plurality voting has the effect that a vote cast for a splinter candidate frequently produces the politically counter-productive effect of helping the major-party candidate whose views are diametrically opposite of those of the voter.

Minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). Candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states. Extremist candidacies as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won a substantial number of electoral votes in numerous states.

well I think you missed the point....votes for the traditional losing party in those states are also wasted...so why not help to build third party opposition to the corrupt puppet partys.

a national vote option would I think harm even further third party efforts as nationwide campaigning would take more money.

The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Presidential candidates currently do everything within their power to raise as much money as they possibly can from donors throughout the country. They then allocate their time and the money that they raise nationally to places where it will do the most good toward their goal of winning the election.

Money doesn't grow on trees. The fact that candidates would spend their money more broadly (that is, in all 50 states and DC) would not, in itself, loosen up the wallet of a single donor anywhere in the country. Candidates will continue to try to raise as much money as economic considerations permit. Economic considerations by donors determines how much money will be available, not the existence of an increases number of places where the money might be spent.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a 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. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five 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. They decided the election. That's precisely what they should do in order to get elected with the current system, because the voters of 80% of the states simply don't matter. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the concerns of voters in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Over 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, are ignored.

If every voter mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would reallocate their time and the money they raise.

 

[dcraelin]

Yes, Obama won in nearly every of the only 12 contested states (while 80% of us were not politically relevant).

But, 2012 was not a landslide election.

"One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent." What Is a Landslide Election

% Popular Vote - Obama 51.1%, Romney 47.1%
# Popular Vote - Obama 65,915,796 - Romney 60,933,6000
# States won - Obama 26 + DC, Romney 24
Electoral Votes - Obama 332 - Romney 206

Yeah...whatever.

When you compete in 10 events and win 9 of them; that's a landslide.

50 states plus DC vote in U.S. presidential elections.
Winning 9 of 51 is not a landslide.

Obama won almost every state he competed in. It was a landslide.

The far left and their religious dogma.

It's a check on the larger states.

As noted, I've noted, the current state-by-state winner-take-all electoral system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but later enacted by state laws) is NOT a guaranteed check on the larger states.

The 11 most populous states (with over 270 electoral votes), by themselves, containing 56% of the population of the United States, could determine the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

your talk of wasted votes gets me thinking that people should be more educated on that aspect as it could open the ground for third parties which the electorate say they want.

no democrat in Texas for example should waste their vote on a democrat if they can vote for a green....or, even help out a more rt-wing third party.

no republican in NewYork or California should vote for a republican...if they can vote for a constitutionalist or a libertarian, or even help out a more left-leaning party like the greens. .

With the current electoral system, votes for third party candidate usually are wasted.
Candidates don't get close to winning the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

In the 1992 election Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Ross Perot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ordinary plurality voting has the effect that a vote cast for a splinter candidate frequently produces the politically counter-productive effect of helping the major-party candidate whose views are diametrically opposite of those of the voter.

Minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). Candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states. Extremist candidacies as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won a substantial number of electoral votes in numerous states.

well I think you missed the point....votes for the traditional losing party in those states are also wasted...so why not help to build third party opposition to the corrupt puppet partys.

a national vote option would I think harm even further third party efforts as nationwide campaigning would take more money.

The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Presidential candidates currently do everything within their power to raise as much money as they possibly can from donors throughout the country. They then allocate their time and the money that they raise nationally to places where it will do the most good toward their goal of winning the election.

Money doesn't grow on trees. The fact that candidates would spend their money more broadly (that is, in all 50 states and DC) would not, in itself, loosen up the wallet of a single donor anywhere in the country. Candidates will continue to try to raise as much money as economic considerations permit. Economic considerations by donors determines how much money will be available, not the existence of an increases number of places where the money might be spent.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a 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. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five 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. They decided the election. That's precisely what they should do in order to get elected with the current system, because the voters of 80% of the states simply don't matter. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the concerns of voters in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Over 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, are ignored.

If every voter mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would reallocate their time and the money they raise.

They maybe wouldn't be able to raise more money...but the odds on the candidate with the most money winning would be better.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's a check on the larger states.

As noted, I've noted, the current state-by-state winner-take-all electoral system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but later enacted by state laws) is NOT a guaranteed check on the larger states.

The 11 most populous states (with over 270 electoral votes), by themselves, containing 56% of the population of the United States, could determine the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

so you dislike the fact that the Constitution leaves how to run elections to counties and states?

could? could've, should've, would've

what in the world is your point?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

candycorn

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

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

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

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

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

it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

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).

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."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

please! stop the bs.

A landslide how? Electorally?

Reagan won a popular vote in 1980 by as much as Obama did in 2012 (Dante voted for Obama in 2012, but not in 2008). Reagan later won both a popular and electoral landslide in 1984. In 2008 - Obama? Check it out.

Stop spinning because it makes you look like a moron. You can do better

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

States rights are paramount in the constitution, period. All of this prattle about they gave their power to the feds is ridiculous. This is exactly why each state has 2 senators regardless of its size, and one of the reasons the EC has value. Were it not like this, the large states would just over run the small ones at every turn. Sure, California and New York would love this, but Montana, Utah, and Kansas would not. Lets face it, if senators were chosen the way the constitution says they should be, Washington would not be in the disaster it is today. Senators answer to nobody, and their main purpose originally was to protect the interest of the state they represented. Washington would love to get rid of the EC, because they would then only have to pander to the population centers since the senate is useless. Carry New York, LA, Frisco, Chicago, St Louis, and few others significantly, and the rest of the country does your bidding. Sorry, I don't think so!

Again,

National Popular Vote would not "get rid of the Electoral College."

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

With National Popular Vote, we would continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes.

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

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

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America voted 60% Republican.
None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only
15% of the population of the United States.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities.
They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not Democratic in every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

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

bullshit alert!

 

[Wyatt earp]

candycorn

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

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

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

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

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

it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

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).

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."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

please! stop the bs.

A landslide how? Electorally?

Reagan won a popular vote in 1980 by as much as Obama did in 2012 (Dante voted for Obama in 2012, but not in 2008). Reagan later won both a popular and electoral landslide in 1984. In 2008 - Obama? Check it out.

Stop spinning because it makes you look like a moron. You can do better

No kidding winning 49 states like Reagan did in 84 is a landslide

Winning 26 states like Obama did in 2012, well it is just a win with work to be done. Which he didn't do it when in his own words , his policies were on the line in 2014

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

candycorn

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

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

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

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

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

it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

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).

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."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

please! stop the bs.

A landslide how? Electorally?

Reagan won a popular vote in 1980 by as much as Obama did in 2012 (Dante voted for Obama in 2012, but not in 2008). Reagan later won both a popular and electoral landslide in 1984. In 2008 - Obama? Check it out.

Stop spinning because it makes you look like a moron. You can do better

No kidding winning 49 states like Reagan did in 84 is a landslide

Winning 26 states like Obama did in 2012, well it is just a win with work to be done. Which he didn't do it when in his own words , his policies were on the line in 2014

I guess you're missing the point that Reaganites say 1980 was a landslide/mandate.

btw, much more of a percentage of eligible voters elected Obama in 2008 -- a very good showing

------------------
2008 Obama win:
All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 61.6% (voting eligible

Nominee Barack Obama John McCain
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Illinois Arizona
Running mate Joe Biden Sarah Palin
Electoral vote 365 173
States carried 28 + DC + NE-02 22
Popular vote 69,498,516 59,948,323
Percentage 52.9%

---

Obama win 2012:

538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 58.2% (voting eligible)

Nominee Barack Obama Mitt Romney
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Illinois Massachusetts
Running mate Joe Biden Paul Ryan
Electoral vote 332 206
States carried 26 + DC 24
Popular vote 65,915,796 60,933,500
Percentage 51.1%
============================================

Reagan win: 1980:


All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 52.6%


Nominee Ronald Reagan Jimmy Carter John B. Anderson
Party Republican Democratic Independent
Home state California Georgia Illinois
Running mate George H. W. Bush Walter Mondale Patrick Lucey
Electoral vote 489 49 0
States carried 44 6 + DC 0
Popular vote 43,903,230 35,480,115 5,719,850
Percentage 50.8% 41.0% 6.6%
---

Reagan win 1984:


All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 53.1%

Nominee Ronald Reagan Walter Mondale
Party Republican Democratic
Home state California Minnesota
Running mate George H. W. Bush Geraldine Ferraro
Electoral vote 525 13
States carried 49 1 + DC
Popular vote 54,455,472 37,577,352
Percentage 58.8% 40.6%

 

[Skylar]

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.

There are plenty of countries that use a parliamentary system to elect a prime minister, the role analogous to our president. The electoral college is a vestigial apparatus of a time when the states elected the presidents

 

[candycorn]

candycorn

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

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

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

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

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

it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

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).

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."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

please! stop the bs.

A landslide how? Electorally?

Reagan won a popular vote in 1980 by as much as Obama did in 2012 (Dante voted for Obama in 2012, but not in 2008). Reagan later won both a popular and electoral landslide in 1984. In 2008 - Obama? Check it out.

Stop spinning because it makes you look like a moron. You can do better

He won 10 of 12 states that were up for grabs. It was a landslide.

 

[candycorn]

candycorn

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

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

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

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

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

it could ? Well blow me over!

If you insist on focusing on Bush you lose whatever audience you might have had. Sore losers demanding reform are boring at best, and at worst? Go figure

I haven't been "focusing" on Bush or the 2000 election.
I used the non-controversial 2004 Bush-Kerry election as an example, to note the many votes from red states that were "wasted" and did not help Bush. Those votes would help their candidate with a National Popular Vote.

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).

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."

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

2012 was a landslide. Obama won nearly every state that was contested.

please! stop the bs.

A landslide how? Electorally?

Reagan won a popular vote in 1980 by as much as Obama did in 2012 (Dante voted for Obama in 2012, but not in 2008). Reagan later won both a popular and electoral landslide in 1984. In 2008 - Obama? Check it out.

Stop spinning because it makes you look like a moron. You can do better

No kidding winning 49 states like Reagan did in 84 is a landslide

Winning 26 states like Obama did in 2012, well it is just a win with work to be done. Which he didn't do it when in his own words , his policies were on the line in 2014

The politics of 1984 were much different.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


.


.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


.


.

what possible relevance does your reply have to do with the question you're responding to?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


.


.

what possible relevance does your reply have to do with the question you're responding to?

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


Why the Electoral College?


The electoral college is a bulwark of states' rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. But neither does it give these less populous states an unfair advantage over the more populous states. The electoral college maintains a delicate equity by (a) allotting the more populous states a greater number of electors, but (b) requiring the electors chosen by the state actually to elect the President. We call our nation the United States of America, and not the united people of America, because it is a union of states, and not merely of individuals. States directly elect Presidents; individuals only indirectly elect Presidents. This protects the integrity of the various states in that it vests them with the authority to choose electors who will themselves choose the President. However, it also fosters the cohesiveness of the entire nation, because it discourages candidates from concentrating on a few dispersed but highly concentrated urban areas."


.

 

[there4eyeM]

The people vote. They vote in states, but the people vote.
The archaic EC was for making a choice in case a candidate of advanced age, and all were at the epoch, died before investiture and another decision had to be made. The Oath is taken sooner now, and people are in better health, or we know about it.
Having the people vote directly for the President is logical and consistent with the rest of the democratic process..

 

[Skylar]

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.

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


.


.

what possible relevance does your reply have to do with the question you're responding to?

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


Why the Electoral College?


The electoral college is a bulwark of states' rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. But neither does it give these less populous states an unfair advantage over the more populous states. The electoral college maintains a delicate equity by (a) allotting the more populous states a greater number of electors, but (b) requiring the electors chosen by the state actually to elect the President. We call our nation the United States of America, and not the united people of America, because it is a union of states, and not merely of individuals. States directly elect Presidents; individuals only indirectly elect Presidents. This protects the integrity of the various states in that it vests them with the authority to choose electors who will themselves choose the President. However, it also fosters the cohesiveness of the entire nation, because it discourages candidates from concentrating on a few dispersed but highly concentrated urban areas."


.

Are you just posting at random? 'welfare states' and the electoral college have no particular relevance. And your post defining the electoral college has no particular relevance to the your 'welfare/police state' shtick either.

Though thanks for posting the link to Lew Rockwell. It saves everyone time for you to just link to whatever website is doing your thinking for you. We can read the actual argument rather than a hamhanded paraphrase.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


.


.

what possible relevance does your reply have to do with the question you're responding to?

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


Why the Electoral College?


The electoral college is a bulwark of states' rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. But neither does it give these less populous states an unfair advantage over the more populous states. The electoral college maintains a delicate equity by (a) allotting the more populous states a greater number of electors, but (b) requiring the electors chosen by the state actually to elect the President. We call our nation the United States of America, and not the united people of America, because it is a union of states, and not merely of individuals. States directly elect Presidents; individuals only indirectly elect Presidents. This protects the integrity of the various states in that it vests them with the authority to choose electors who will themselves choose the President. However, it also fosters the cohesiveness of the entire nation, because it discourages candidates from concentrating on a few dispersed but highly concentrated urban areas."


.

Are you just posting at random? 'welfare states' and the electoral college have no particular relevance. And your post defining the electoral college has no particular relevance to the your 'welfare/police state' shtick either.

Though thanks for posting the link to Lew Rockwell. It saves everyone time for you to just link to whatever website is doing your thinking for you. We can read the actual argument rather than a hamhanded paraphrase.

I understand that as a parasitic state supremacist you prefer to have states like NY and California decide elections because that is where the largest concentration of your ilk resides.


.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


.


.

what possible relevance does your reply have to do with the question you're responding to?

Excellent question.


We should abolish and/or ignore any Constitutional proviso which prevents us from enlarging the already gargantual welfare/warfare police state.


Why the Electoral College?


The electoral college is a bulwark of states' rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. But neither does it give these less populous states an unfair advantage over the more populous states. The electoral college maintains a delicate equity by (a) allotting the more populous states a greater number of electors, but (b) requiring the electors chosen by the state actually to elect the President. We call our nation the United States of America, and not the united people of America, because it is a union of states, and not merely of individuals. States directly elect Presidents; individuals only indirectly elect Presidents. This protects the integrity of the various states in that it vests them with the authority to choose electors who will themselves choose the President. However, it also fosters the cohesiveness of the entire nation, because it discourages candidates from concentrating on a few dispersed but highly concentrated urban areas."


.

Are you just posting at random? 'welfare states' and the electoral college have no particular relevance. And your post defining the electoral college has no particular relevance to the your 'welfare/police state' shtick either.

Though thanks for posting the link to Lew Rockwell. It saves everyone time for you to just link to whatever website is doing your thinking for you. We can read the actual argument rather than a hamhanded paraphrase.

I understand that as a parasitic state supremacist you prefer to have states like NY and California decide elections because that is where the largest concentration of your ilk resides.

.

So your theory is that NY and CA are trying to preserve the Electoral College system?