no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.
And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?
The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.
Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
Let me ask you something. What is the goal of the "National Popular Vote" organization....not from the webpage but in your own words please.
One Person, One Vote.
We have that already.
Every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
We have that as well. No intrinsic power gives Texas to the GOP every election year. The Party and the voters in the State agree on a broad range of issues so Texas goes red.
As for my vote counting...in the current system, Democrats in Texas are pretty much wasting their votes...right? In the final analysis nationwide, if your person doesn't win, isn't that the same thing? Your voice isn't being heard.
The candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every election in the country.
That almost always happens now. I do not see how tinkering with the system would give us a different set of outcomes.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
First off, where is that written?
Secondly, if I need only a mass number of votes to win an election, the last place I will campaign is in the rural areas since there is no prize to speaking to a crowd of 3,000 when I could be speaking to a crowd of 10,000 in a larger city.
Nor am I buying advertising time in less populous states/areas when my ad dollars will go further in more populous areas.
If there is a good reason to kick the EC out, you're not presenting a better alternative in terms of empowering all Americans. A better plan seems to be to add another requirement--one that requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote. This would not change many outcomes either but then again, I think America gets it right almost every time.
My follow-up question to you is this; if you're going to make it where the popular vote is the determining factor and not artificially try to empower those in less populous areas, wouldn't it make more sense to simply up the % requirement to 60 or 70 percent as opposed to fifty?
National Popular Vote does not kick the EC out.
The EC would still elect the President.
National Popular Vote requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
& &
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."
& &
You think 80% of states and voters should be content to be taken for granted in presidential elections and beyond?
In 2004, “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the
Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws adversely affect governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
** “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
** “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
** A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
** The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
** Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”
The effect of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in
Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.
Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.
& &
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
