Pfft....this is going to sound degrading and I don't mean for it to be....
Did you notice that in President Obama's first term, the GOP could not pass enough bills to repeal Obama Care? In his second term starting in 2012, these guys went out of their way to pass even more bills for the new members who didn't get to vote on it the first time. And, if I recall, in some cases there were unsettled elections that prevented even more members from having the opportunity to cast a vote against it so they staged yet more votes to repeal it. After they got control of the Congress in 2014; they have done it once.
Do you know why?
It's easy to play with blanks. They knew that there would be no downside to their actions so they went crazy and staged as many pointless votes as possible. Now that they have some actual influence, they're being much more careful about how they cast their votes. The People will expect them to come up with something better and they have nothing.
Not to disparage your research and you obviously have put a lot of thought into it but the "so many states have done X" argument is not really something you want to hang your hat on since this is something that had zero chance of going any further up the ladder.
There is no "up the ladder" action needed if/when states with 270 electoral votes enact the National Popular Vote bill.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
Pfft....this is going to sound degrading and I don't mean for it to be....
Did you notice that in President Obama's first term, the GOP could not pass enough bills to repeal Obama Care? In his second term starting in 2012, these guys went out of their way to pass even more bills for the new members who didn't get to vote on it the first time. And, if I recall, in some cases there were unsettled elections that prevented even more members from having the opportunity to cast a vote against it so they staged yet more votes to repeal it. After they got control of the Congress in 2014; they have done it once.
Do you know why?
It's easy to play with blanks. They knew that there would be no downside to their actions so they went crazy and staged as many pointless votes as possible. Now that they have some actual influence, they're being much more careful about how they cast their votes. The People will expect them to come up with something better and they have nothing.
Not to disparage your research and you obviously have put a lot of thought into it but the "so many states have done X" argument is not really something you want to hang your hat on since this is something that had zero chance of going any further up the ladder.
There is no "up the ladder" action needed if/when states with 270 electoral votes enact the National Popular Vote bill.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
In total, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes (20 votes short), including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
Yeah..the fact that it hasn't happened is an indication of "up the ladder" action being needed. Again, it's easy to argue in theory and academia. It's a much more serious matter if there was some real consequences to this.
Since its origination in 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in legislatures in all 50 states.
More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.
It is a state law. It can only be enacted by states. There is no other scenario for it to go into effect.
It's not theoretical or academic. When states with 270 electoral votes enact it, there will be real consequences.
The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
That's what most Americans want.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate, as in virtually every other election in the country.
National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea.
Yes, again, when the vote was taken, there was no downside since its not going to be enacted. Its like trying your jump serve in the first match of a best 2-3 VBall. If you ace it, great. If it's a netter; you haven't risked anything except the side-out. If you told most of the people that the vote they cast would likely result in a total tsunami of political spending (which it would do), marginalize any State that doesn't have a large population (which it will) and force any serious candidate to pander as never before (which is hard to believe but would be the result) , they'd think twice about it.
I agree, having it is not scary. What is scary is the environment you're endorsing hasn't been thought out in 2016 realities. I discuss that in another post. I welcome your rebuttal.
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. 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, were ignored.
In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.
Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to 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.
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
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.
