It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

[mvymvy]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because I don't really give a **** what NY and California want.

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.

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) 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) 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).

 

[mvymvy]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Using Single Transfer Vote..... Simple and would stop half the messing...

Simplest, and how virtually every other election in the country is run.

Every voter, everywhere, voting for the candidates matters and count equally. The candidate with the most votes wins.

Time for you to get started on passing your Constitutional amendment.

No. The National Popular Vote bill awards a state’s electoral votes under the authority of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
By changing state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

The Electoral College remains in place, with sovereign states determining the manner in which their electoral votes are cast.

 

[mvymvy]

A national election is a state by state issue, brilliant.

Are you kidding?????

Stupid much?

Could you manage to state something perhaps?

It is a state by state issue and must stay that way.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

If a republican was likely to win the majority of votes, Democrat states in the Compact would leave the Compact at the last moment to declare their EC votes go to the Democrat. Didn't know about that loophole did you?

No. A state could not leave the Compact at the last moment.

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

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

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

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

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

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

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

 

[mvymvy]

I am not missing any point. And neither are voters in small states who support the National Popular Vote bill.

The point is that NOW, with the current system (not mentioned in the Constitution), a candidate could lose in the 39 "smallest" states and win the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states are politically divided, as are the small states, and do not ALL vote 100% for either party.
Voters in California and New York would not overwhelm the votes of the 48 other states.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.

Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance

A national popular vote simply allows those seeking the Presidency to campaign only in the most populous areas. Nothing you have written this time (or the last 3 times you cut and pasted the filibuster length diatribe)has changed that fact.

Again you assert this and again I have to point out that such is NOT the case in existing battleground states. What makes you so sure that it suddenly becomes true when taken nation wide?

I'll buy into what you're saying when the candidates visit Carson City and Grand Junction multiple times in an election cycle.

Politicians visiting small rural arias in states that have major metropolitan cities in them is a fact plain and simple. You pulling 2 random places out of thin air does not change that fact.

Some examples, please. And remember, we're talking about multiple visits as they make to Chicago, Columbus, Philly, Pittsburgh, etc... My guess is that you'll now try to paint some suburb as the boonies.

The question remains - your conjecture that politicians would not visit anything but a few metropolitan areas is not based on anything more than that.

No, your statement is conjecture. Mine is rooted in fact.

Trump will be in:

Toledo Over a quarter of a million in the city alone.
Chester Twnship, PA in 1/2 million person Delaware County
Roanoke, population near 100,000.
This week according to his website.

Not exactly small town America...

I will admit that the Roanoke trip has me (and I'm sure GOP strategists) confused. He's down by 3-8 points in VA and there is nothing to indicate he's going to win it. Holding an event there makes no sense. This is how you shoot yourself in the foot. And he's announced he's going dark in VA.

Hillary has the following dates on her website (it includes her army of surrogates).

September 21, 2016 Orlando, Florida Rally Hillary Clinton
September 21, 2016 San Francisco, California Fundraiser Tim Kaine
September 22, 2016 Reno, Nevada Rally Tim Kaine
September 22, 2016 Toledo, Ohio Organizing Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Women for Hillary Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Lansing, Michigan Students for Hillary Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Vienna, Austria Fundraiser for American Citizens William C. Eacho
September 24, 2016 Nashua, New Hampshire Canvass Launch Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 24, 2016 Manchester, New Hampshire Canvass Launch Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 24, 2016 Durham, New Hampshire Organizing Event Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 25, 2016 New York City, New York Fundraiser Amy Poehler and Ana Gasteyer
September 26, 2016 Hempstead, New York Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
September 26, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Debate Watch Party Fundraiser LGBT for the Hillary Victory Fund
September 26, 2016 Austin, Texas Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Hillary Victory Fund
September 26, 2016 New York City, New York Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Uzo Aduba
September 26, 2016 Brookline, Massachusetts Fundraiser Boston for45
September 27, 2016 New York City, New York Fundraiser Amanda Renteria
September 28, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rally First Lady Michelle Obama
September 28, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Rally First Lady Michelle Obama
September 30, 2016 Brooklyn, New York Fundraiser Scott M. Stringer
October 2, 2016 Atlanta, Georgia Fundraiser Senator Cory Booker
October 3, 2016 Brussels, Belgium Fundraiser for American Citizens Stephen Rapp
October 4, 2016 Farmville, Virginia Vice-Presidential Debate Tim Kaine
October 5, 2016 Washington, DC Fundraiser Hillary Clinton
October 5, 2016 London, England Fundraiser for American Citizens Melanne Verveer
October 9, 2016 St. Louis, Missouri Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
October 15, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Fundraiser Chicago for Hillary
October 17, 2016 Dallas, Texas Fundraiser LGBT and Allies
October 19, 2016 Las Vegas, Nevada Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
October 19, 2016 Newton, Massachusetts Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Jewish Community for Hillary

Large city after large city.

You simply have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

In the 2012 presidential general election campaign,

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

In Iowa, Florida, Virginia, and Ohio the candidates campaigned in various parts of the state essentially in proportion to each state's population.

In Ohio—the single state that received over a quarter (73 of 253) of all of the 2012 general-election campaign events (and a similar fraction of advertising expenditures), the candidates campaigned in various parts of the state essentially in proportion to its population.

● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 53.9% of the state’s population and received 52.1% of the state’s 73 campaign events in 2012—slightly less than their share of the population (but very close to their percentage of the population). They voted 54% Democratic.

● The 7 medium-sized metro areas have 23.6% of the state’s population and received 23.3% of the campaign events—almost exactly in proportion of their population. They voted 52% Democratic.

● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population and received 25% of the campaign events—slightly more than their share of the population (but very close to their percentage of the population). They voted 58% Republican


In a nationwide election, as in statewide elections for governor and U.S. Senators, and elections for President in battleground states, candidates would campaign everywhere in proportion to the number of votes.

 

[mvymvy]

By gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?

,True. Make it by county. The majority of counties in the State determines who wins the State's electoral votes. That way the big urban cities don't overly influence the desires by the rest of the State.

Again, an artificial method of determining an election.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their county, district, or state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is from 2015 but it's a great article. Under our present winner-take-all system, lots of voters know their vote doesn't matter.

It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

feb 3 2015 The custom in the United States today is for Electoral College (EC) votes to be awarded state-by-state on a winner-take-all basis. A candidate who wins the popular vote in an individual state gets every one of its electoral votes.

Although we are accustomed to thinking this is the only way it can be done, the method of awarding electoral votes is a matter for each state to decide. For example, two states (Nebraska and Maine) award electoral college votes by congressional district rather than by statewide popular vote. There is no reason for every other state in the nation not to follow suit.

Voters outside major population centers today are virtually disenfranchised by the current arrangement. Voters in eastern Washington, for instance, know full well that the outcome of the electoral college vote will be determined by the vote in the major population centers of Seattle and King County. They know their vote, while it will be counted, is largely symbolic.

But if EC votes are awarded by congressional district, suddenly voters in eastern Washington, whose districts lie wholly outside the state’s urban centers, have a voice and a vote that counts.

In California, Romney would have won 13 of the state’s 55 electoral votes, which is certainly better than a shutout and has the additional and more important advantage of letting voters in those 13 congressional districts know that their vote matters as much as the vote of folks in San Francisco and L.A. Romney would have won three of New York’s 29 electoral votes, six out of Illinois’ 20, and 13 out of Florida’s 29.

It's time for the EC to be scrapped, and the popular vote be the decider.

 

[mvymvy]

Again, what do you plan to do when a candidate wins the majority and loses the EC?

The same remedy we have now if no candidate gets to 270 Electoral votes.

Which is have the legislators decide - a markedly WORSE 'solution.'

That fixes exactly nothing.

Which is why it is a secondary system. The mandate to get both the plurality of the Popular Vote and the majority of the EV will satisfy the need that some have to make sure our President is the choice of the people who vote and not the electors.

It's a superior system to the nationwide popular vote by head and shoulders. The current remedy for no person getting to 270 EVs is fine as well in terms of it being a backstop.

No, it isn't and simply saying it is so does not make it so. Throwing the election to the legislator is moving BACKWARD and also continues to allow those that do not gain the popular vote are still able to gain the presidency. Had your system been in place during Bush we would have ended up with the same outcome and a worse attitude about it. Essentially, including the popular vote solves nothing at all if you rely on the EC as well.

I never contended that we would have a different out come to the 2000 election. But if there was a majority of Democrats in the House at the time, it would have still been the will of the people since, you may not be aware of this, people actually elect those that serve in the House. You seem to think it is staffed by Martians or something....
.

Lately, support for (the heavily gerrymandered) Congress has been below 10%. Most Americans would be appalled to have Congress decide a presidential election, rather than the popular vote of that election.

Ian Millhiser of Think Progress reported: Thanks To Gerrymandering, Democrats Would Need To Win The Popular Vote By Over 7 Percent To Take Back The House
"Partisan gerrymanders, like the one . . . now all but locks the GOP majority in place" - Jan 2, 2013

An example of congressional district gerrymandering effects, in 2012, is that Virginia Republicans got 51% of U.S. House of Representatives vote, but won 73% of seats!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The point is, that most Americans believe presidential elections should be determined by the winner of the national popular vote.

Most americans??? I don't know that at all. There are lots of americans who prefer the states to be above the feds like the constitution says.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No. The National Popular Vote bill awards a state’s electoral votes under the authority of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
By changing state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

The Electoral College remains in place, with sovereign states determining the manner in which their electoral votes are cast.

HAHAHA. Yeah the EC remains in place - but it no longer has any function.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With the National Popular Vote bill, the presidential election would continue to be done at the state level.

Federal law cannot mandate proportional representation in the elector college.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It's time for the EC to be scrapped, and the popular vote be the decider.

Power in america is already too centralized. We need to return to states rights as the FF intended.

 

[mvymvy]

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 the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

A presidential candidate could lose with 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

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

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

You are missing the point, small states do not want to be dictated to by large states like California which is full of a bunch of freaks and traitors or hilariously corrupt states like New York.

I am not missing any point. And neither are voters in small states who support the National Popular Vote bill.

The point is that NOW, with the current system (not mentioned in the Constitution), a candidate could lose in the 39 "smallest" states and win the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states are politically divided, as are the small states, and do not ALL vote 100% for either party.
Voters in California and New York would not overwhelm the votes of the 48 other states.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.

Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance

. . .

The National Popular Vote bill is NOT a non-binding resolution.

Sure it is. Everyone who voted for it knew that when they were casting their vote, the measure had no hope of being considered, much less ratified. If there were actual skin in the game, the deliberations would be much more serious as would the manner in which the legislators cast their ballot.

The National Popular Vote bill is law in 11 jurisdictions now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's time for the EC to be scrapped, and the popular vote be the decider.

When you amend the Constitution to that effect, let us know.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Federal law cannot mandate proportional representation in the elector college.

Yup - according to the tenth amendment, the only way the feds can meddle with votes is by constitutional amendment.

 

[mvymvy]

It's time for the EC to be scrapped, and the popular vote be the decider.

Power in america is already too centralized. We need to return to states rights as the FF intended.

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

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution--
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Under the National Popular Vote bill, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

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

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

Federal law cannot mandate proportional representation in the elector college.

Yup - according to the tenth amendment, the only way the feds can meddle with votes is by constitutional amendment.

According to the Constitution, state legislatures have plenary power to determine the method of chusing electors.
There doesn't even need to be an election

 

[mvymvy]

The point is, that most Americans believe presidential elections should be determined by the winner of the national popular vote.

Most americans??? I don't know that at all. There are lots of americans who prefer the states to be above the feds like the constitution says.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

NationalPopularVote.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's time for the EC to be scrapped, and the popular vote be the decider.

Power in america is already too centralized. We need to return to states rights as the FF intended.

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

How can the state have this responsibility when the issue need not even be put to a vote?

 

[BluesLegend]

You are missing the point, small states do not want to be dictated to by large states like California which is full of a bunch of freaks and traitors or hilariously corrupt states like New York.

I am not missing any point. And neither are voters in small states who support the National Popular Vote bill.

The point is that NOW, with the current system (not mentioned in the Constitution), a candidate could lose in the 39 "smallest" states and win the Presidency.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states are politically divided, as are the small states, and do not ALL vote 100% for either party.
Voters in California and New York would not overwhelm the votes of the 48 other states.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.

Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance

. . .

The National Popular Vote bill is NOT a non-binding resolution.

Sure it is. Everyone who voted for it knew that when they were casting their vote, the measure had no hope of being considered, much less ratified. If there were actual skin in the game, the deliberations would be much more serious as would the manner in which the legislators cast their ballot.

The National Popular Vote bill is law in 11 jurisdictions now.

I think you need to look up "National" in a dictionary. lol

 

[kaz]

The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country

Every other election is at the State or partial State level

And voters in a presidential election are in all 50 states and DC.

No shit, what's your point beyond what we were already discussing?

The point is, that most Americans believe presidential elections should be determined by the winner of the national popular vote.

Based on what?