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

[JakeStarkey]

You always squeal when you get caught in your lies. When have I ever not condemned or excused gerrymandering? You put words in other peoples' mouths they did not say because you don't have the truth. You are a mental midget.

What lie? You didn't disagree with anything I said, dumb ass.You have a serious alcohol problem, don't you, Jake?

Personal attacks, bold assertions, lies, etc., shows kaz to be a dull person.

you wrote that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems

Dull Person Kaz, that is a lie.

You're lying Jake, you never criticize Democrats when they and Republicans do the same things, you only criticize Republicans for it

That's not only a bold assertion, it's a life, and a personal attack. You have expanded your lie from gerrymandering to "when they do the same things." That is a fallacy of argumentum absurdum. Do you have any examples? You are now dubbed Kazcuck.

OK, Jake. I've made this clear to you. I'm not answering your questions until you start answering mine. It's non-negotiable. Note there's not a single question mark in this entire paragraph.

But if you want examples, you're repeatedly told that by Republicans across the board, I'm sure they'd be glad to show you that since they keep telling you.

And seriously, you need to be in alcohol treatment, you're losing it

Hit a nereve, huh. More attacks and bold assertion. You said "when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems" and you own it, buddy. You guys are far right and Alt Right, and I have no respect for any of your truth-telling. The great majority mistake your beliefs for facts.

So, no, you don't "just once more." Ever.

You don't dictate anything to anybody.

 

[rightwinger]

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“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."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The 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 passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

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.

NationalPopularVote

NPV is a stupid idea and ***** over smaller States. Candidates would only campaign in urban areas and promise most federal spending goes to the urban area. This is a liberal trick to have power for eternity.

Right now, candidates only campaign in swing states....how is that different?

They primary in every state and any other state during the general until the state is locked down. It only makes sense to concentrate on the swing states after that.

So what is different in concentrating on urban areas?

 

[mvymvy]

[Q(UOTE="AvgGuyIA, post: 15346952, member: 22468"]

It's to easy to do a popular vote now, so I don't even see the use of the EV

sure, pols would stick mostly to the cities, but isn't that what tv is for?

how many attend a rally v watch it on tv or net?

and the person that goes to the country side has a far better chance than the person that stuck to just the cities

Contradiction. You people have to understand that the needs of Iowa is far different than New York. NY has multiple times the EC votes than Iowa. Pols are far more likely to promise shit to NY than Iowa, yet I pay the same tax rate as a NewYorker. And you can bet the farm there are multiple more welfare checks and non taxpayers in NY than Iowa. The EC system is the only fair way to select our President. Leave a good system alone. NY state power and influence is in the House where the money is allocated.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing fair about the current state-by-state winner-take-all EC system , not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

There is nothing good about it.

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.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of three-quarters of all Americans is now finished for the presidential election.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..

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).

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

Charlie Cook reported 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.”

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

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 interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, from the free-trade party.

Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years is skewed to battleground states

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

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

The biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

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

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. 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.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

In a nationwide election for President, candidates would campaign everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas—in proportion to the number of votes, just as they now do in only a handful of battleground states.

 

[mvymvy]

A survey of Iowa voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. 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.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdiction
Now, 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.

NationalPopularVote

 

[mvymvy]

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“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."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The 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 passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

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.

NationalPopularVote

NPV is a stupid idea and ***** over smaller States. Candidates would only campaign in urban areas and promise most federal spending goes to the urban area. This is a liberal trick to have power for eternity.

Right now, candidates only campaign in swing states....how is that different?

They primary in every state and any other state during the general until the state is locked down. It only makes sense to concentrate on the swing states after that.

In fact, in 2012,
More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the then only ten competitive states.

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).

38 states were ignored because they were politically irrelevant.

In the 2016 general election campaign, so far:
Half of the presidential campaign events since the nominating conventions (64 of 127) have been in just 4 states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina).

87% of the events (111 of the 127) have been in the 11 states identified as closely divided "battleground" states by Politico and The Hill.

29 states and DC have been totally ignored.

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:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

Charlie Cook reported 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.”

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

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.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, from the free-trade party.

Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years is skewed to battleground states

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.

 

[mvymvy]

The official name is the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote."

Completely unnecessary. States can already seat their electors by proportional representation, if they choose.
They can also flip a coin, if they choose

States can already enact the National Popular Vote bill.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes—1%, 2%, or 3%. As a matter of practical politics, only one electoral vote would be in play in almost all states. A system that requires even a 9% share of the popular vote in order to win one electoral vote is fundamentally out of sync with the small-percentage vote shifts that are involved in real-world presidential campaigns.

If a current battleground state, like Colorado, were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

The proportional method also easily could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of 270 electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

Awarding electoral votes by a proportional method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. If done nationally, the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

In a situation in which no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, with the current system, the election of the President would be thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would be thrown into the U.S. Senate. Congress would decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal.

It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

 

[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.

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

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“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."

None of this answers my question. Try again.
How can the state have the responsibility you claim when the issue need not even be put to a vote?

Ask the Founders.

Thy left the choice of method for awarding electoral votes exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“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."

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

 

[Kondor3]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.

The Founders were largely wealthy men of property, unwilling to put the fate of the Republic into the hands of those less-well propertied.

The population of the United States was largely uneducated at the time; however, that is no longer true.

Instantaneous and ubiquitous communications and real-time news and political coverage have moved the ball far downfield towards Popular Governance.

The Will of the People is the Supreme Authority in this country.

The time for an Electoral College passed with the advent and widespread implementation of high speed computing and data communications.

The time has come to eliminate the Electoral College altogether; substituting a popular vote that can now be counted accurately at lightning speed.

Or, de-activate the thing, and hold it reserve, much like a pad of paper and a Number Two pencil in a desk drawer, in case the power goes out.

The Electoral College is an anachronism - a cumbersome, clumsy and un-wanted mechanism of the past that can safely be eliminated.

The constitution is the supreme authority in the Country, only to be overridden if the will of the people exceeds 3/4 of the States and 2/3rd's of the federal legislature.

In other words, "The Will of the People is the Supreme Authority in this country." I agree.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the electoral college will remain for all of your life times.

 

[Kondor3]

The population of the United States was largely uneducated at the time; however, that is no longer true.

HAHAHA. Did you really say that.? With all the illiterate blacks and illegals and legal immigrants in america today, the country is less educated than ever.

Go educate yourself on this subject... I really haven't got the time to do your homework for you tonight.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

 

[kaz]

What lie? You didn't disagree with anything I said, dumb ass.You have a serious alcohol problem, don't you, Jake?

Personal attacks, bold assertions, lies, etc., shows kaz to be a dull person.

you wrote that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems

Dull Person Kaz, that is a lie.

You're lying Jake, you never criticize Democrats when they and Republicans do the same things, you only criticize Republicans for it

That's not only a bold assertion, it's a life, and a personal attack. You have expanded your lie from gerrymandering to "when they do the same things." That is a fallacy of argumentum absurdum. Do you have any examples? You are now dubbed Kazcuck.

OK, Jake. I've made this clear to you. I'm not answering your questions until you start answering mine. It's non-negotiable. Note there's not a single question mark in this entire paragraph.

But if you want examples, you're repeatedly told that by Republicans across the board, I'm sure they'd be glad to show you that since they keep telling you.

And seriously, you need to be in alcohol treatment, you're losing it

Hit a nereve, huh. More attacks and bold assertion. You said "when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems" and you own it, buddy. You guys are far right and Alt Right, and I have no respect for any of your truth-telling. The great majority mistake your beliefs for facts.

So, no, you don't "just once more." Ever.

You don't dictate anything to anybody.

That's how many vodka martinis, Jake? Get help

 

[JakeStarkey]

Personal attacks, bold assertions, lies, etc., shows kaz to be a dull person.

you wrote that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems

Dull Person Kaz, that is a lie.

You're lying Jake, you never criticize Democrats when they and Republicans do the same things, you only criticize Republicans for it

That's not only a bold assertion, it's a life, and a personal attack. You have expanded your lie from gerrymandering to "when they do the same things." That is a fallacy of argumentum absurdum. Do you have any examples? You are now dubbed Kazcuck.

OK, Jake. I've made this clear to you. I'm not answering your questions until you start answering mine. It's non-negotiable. Note there's not a single question mark in this entire paragraph.

But if you want examples, you're repeatedly told that by Republicans across the board, I'm sure they'd be glad to show you that since they keep telling you.

And seriously, you need to be in alcohol treatment, you're losing it

Hit a nereve, huh. More attacks and bold assertion. You said "when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems" and you own it, buddy. You guys are far right and Alt Right, and I have no respect for any of your truth-telling. The great majority mistake your beliefs for facts.

So, no, you don't "just once more." Ever.

You don't dictate anything to anybody.

That's how many vodka martinis, Jake? Get help

Personal attack because you have nothing else.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

She has made several visits to areas that are not major urban settings. They are all over her calendar if you bother to look at the previous ones on her site. The list that you have posted contains events in Zanesville, Ohio (25K) and Durham, New Hampshire (15K) - hardly major cities. The particular time frame that you have pulled (the immediate future) has Hillary making almost no appearances anywhere save for the upcoming debates for obvious reasons anyway. Further, the majority of what you just posted are fundraisers and those take place in small urban settings all the time. They are also completely immaterial to the discussion - where rich people gather to buy politicians really has not bearing on the contention that said politicians will only campaign in major cities.

What is even more bizarre is that you have put fourth the argument that the EC needs to remain so that politicians DO NOT simply campaign in major cities. Then you try to post evidence that those politicians only campaign on major cities under the EC system. Your personal attack stating that I have no earthly idea what I am talking about is rather laughable considering you cant even articulate a solid point here without trying to post evidence to the contrary.

Which is it - the EC prevents politicians from campaigning only in major population centers or it does nothing to stop it? You might want to get your premise straight.

 

[FA_Q2]

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....
.

No, I think it is elected by congressional district - something that you are arguing against as the deciding factor in presidential elections as that was the idea put fourth by the OP. Have you changed your mind now or are you still confused about what your own point is?

So now the house electing the president is somehow preferential to allowing the EC to do it? That is asinine - having 2 metrics that may disagree as the deciding factors in electing the president is an absolutely abysmal idea. The EC as it stands now is far better than adding another metric and throwing the election to the house. In every single case where the EC disagrees with the PV you would end up in the house - you have yet to explain why that is better than simply having the EC vote stand or the PV vote stand.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

That's just Mob rule. Dip shit

No, it is not. Mob rule is having a democratic process that trumps everything. Electing the president democratically does not = mob rule as we still have a constitution and protected rights that the 'mob' cannot trample on.

We already vote for the president nationally and voting has been enshrined in the constitution. This makes the current voting mechanism nonsensical. When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

You are correct - it cannot. It would take a constitutional amendment or at least half EC by states to pass a law that awarded their EC votes by the outcome of the popular vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

I was wondering when we’d get our first crybaby thread about the EC.

The winning position is that you make it to where the President-elect would have to win both the majority of EV and the plurality of the PV. We can’t get rid of the EC all together because people would only campaign in the large cities. Congressional districts would also be a stupid idea given how the media is dominant over a region. However, in this day and age of being able to tally votes within days if not hours…it makes no sense to ignore the popular vote any longer.

It's crazy because the EC already favors them. They have multiple states that are just empty land, but still get the minimum 3 EV's even though their population doesn't warrant it.

If it was a national popular vote, small states might as well not even vote. A City like Baltimore would displace the whole of the northern plains states. No fairness in that at all...
This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy.

A state like CA displaces those smaller states right now. Even worse, there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of republicans there that have their vote go to the democrat and they are worth far more EC votes than several small states combined. Those republicans in CA are counted for the democrat candidate no matter what.

 

[FA_Q2]

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“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."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The 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 passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

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.

NationalPopularVote

NPV is a stupid idea and ***** over smaller States. Candidates would only campaign in urban areas and promise most federal spending goes to the urban area. This is a liberal trick to have power for eternity.

Right now, candidates only campaign in swing states....how is that different?

They primary in every state and any other state during the general until the state is locked down. It only makes sense to concentrate on the swing states after that.

So what is different in concentrating on urban areas?

The difference is that every vote gained matters if the popular vote is in play. Gaining ten votes in urban arias is the same as gaining ten in rural areas. What matters is the number of receptive voters in that particular area rather than exclusively focusing on population density. I would bet that you would see more republican campaigning in urban areas and more democrat campaigning in rural ones.

With the system as we have it now, campaigning in non-battleground states gains you nothing at all. Not one single vote even if you sway thousands to vote for you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Why not have Proportional Representation and a run off system like the French?

 

[candycorn]

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.

She has made several visits to areas that are not major urban settings. They are all over her calendar if you bother to look at the previous ones on her site. The list that you have posted contains events in Zanesville, Ohio (25K) and Durham, New Hampshire (15K) - hardly major cities. The particular time frame that you have pulled (the immediate future) has Hillary making almost no appearances anywhere save for the upcoming debates for obvious reasons anyway. Further, the majority of what you just posted are fundraisers and those take place in small urban settings all the time. They are also completely immaterial to the discussion - where rich people gather to buy politicians really has not bearing on the contention that said politicians will only campaign in major cities.

Only in your mind.

What is even more bizarre is that you have put fourth the argument that the EC needs to remain so that politicians DO NOT simply campaign in major cities. Then you try to post evidence that those politicians only campaign on major cities under the EC system. Your personal attack stating that I have no earthly idea what I am talking about is rather laughable considering you cant even articulate a solid point here without trying to post evidence to the contrary.

Well, as I recall, I was showing that they are already doing it; as I proved it was done (as you just admitted).

Which is it - the EC prevents politicians from campaigning only in major population centers or it does nothing to stop it? You might want to get your premise straight.

I never made such an argument that the EC allows small towns a voice. That was your bullshit and to support it, you produced 2 examples out of what...30? I would say "nice try" except it wasn't really. Try to be smarter next time (fat chance).

What I have stated is that the EC is necessary to give small states a voice. Otherwise, nobody would spend a dime in Iowa during the General election. The advent of having the popular vote plurality is necessary to keep confidence in the system and ensure that the electors are not able to install someone contrary to the will of the voters.

Now don't make me correct you again.