• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The electoral college

How should presidents be elected

  • Popular vote

    Votes: 27 45.8%
  • Electoral college

    Votes: 32 54.2%

  • Total voters
    59
It's not unresolvable, in case of a "tie" (no one gets 270), the Congress selects President.

That's the current rule, in connection with the Electoral College. If we did away with the Electoral College, we'd have to also change this rule, I think. I don't think we'd ever be able to resolve the popular vote down to a difference of one or two votes, so we'd probably have to set a threshold of closeness, and if the election is closer than that margin, call it a “tie” and leave it to Congress to determine the winner. Otherwise, a close election would result in Florida 2000 on a national scale.


B/S!!! "For all intents and purposes" Al Gore got 500 thousand more votes than George Bush. Had it not been for the Electoral College he would have been elected President. Period!

United States presidential election, 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference was very well within the margin of error in the count as it existed. There were quite a bit more uncounted absentee votes in California alone than that. They weren't counted, because without them, California's outcome was already established, but if we were going by national popular vote, then it would have been necessary to count them. As California's absentee votes generally tend to lean significantly more conservative than the non-absentee votes, it's very likely that this, alone, would have shifted the popular vote to Bush's side.

But then just imagine also, what happened in Florida, happening on a national scale, with fifty different states, and fifty different voting systems, each one being examined in painstaking detail to figure out what errors they might introduce, and to determine which, if any of them, might have biased their results one way or another. I say that if this had happened, that even by now, eight years after the end of the term for which that election was being held, that we still could not have known for sure who the legitimate winner was.
 
That's the current rule, in connection with the Electoral College. If we did away with the Electoral College, we'd have to also change this rule, I think. I don't think we'd ever be able to resolve the popular vote down to a difference of one or two votes, so we'd probably have to set a threshold of closeness, and if the election is closer than that margin, call it a “tie” and leave it to Congress to determine the winner. Otherwise, a close election would result in Florida 2000 on a national scale.

Pistols at dawn.
 
The difference was very well within the margin of error in the count as it existed. There were quite a bit more uncounted absentee votes in California alone than that. They weren't counted, because without them, California's outcome was already established, but if we were going by national popular vote, then it would have been necessary to count them. As California's absentee votes generally tend to lean significantly more conservative than the non-absentee votes, it's very likely that this, alone, would have shifted the popular vote to Bush's side.

Ummmm Nah! Margin of error occurs in statistics not in a vote count. 540,000 more popular votes than an opponent obtained makes that man the winner in an election decided by popular vote.

Spin it any way you want to but that will always remain the case.
 
Ummmm Nah! Margin of error occurs in statistics not in a vote count. 540,000 more popular votes than an opponent obtained makes that man the winner in an election decided by popular vote.

Spin it any way you want to but that will always remain the case.

A vote count on that scale is statistics. Out of over a hundred million votes counted, we can know that there are unavoidably going to be some errors in the result. That 540,000 vote difference looks like a big number, but it's about half of a percent of the total votes counted. I do not think that it is anywhere close to reasonable to assume that the official popular vote count is accurate to within half a percent. Keep in mind that as the popular vote has no legal standing, there is no reason why great pains would have been taken to assure that level of accuracy on the national scale. It was the electoral vote that counted. Each state needed to make sure that its electors were chosen correctly, and only in Florida was there enough of a dispute to make a detailed examination necessary. The official difference in Florida's vote between Bush and Gore comes to about 0.009 of a percent, and, of course, there are still those who dispute this result.
 
If we get rid of the electoral system, candidates will be forced to focus on all states instead of just swing states

No, they would focus on the largest population centers and ignore everything else.
 
They do that now

Would you like to see it increase dramatically? Yes, more populated states receive a great deal more electoral votes. However, once you remove those states with their single-digit numbers, you're looking at incredibly little incentive.
 
Last edited:
A vote count on that scale is statistics. Out of over a hundred million votes counted, we can know that there are unavoidably going to be some errors in the result. That 540,000 vote difference looks like a big number, but it's about half of a percent of the total votes counted. I do not think that it is anywhere close to reasonable to assume that the official popular vote count is accurate to within half a percent. Keep in mind that as the popular vote has no legal standing, there is no reason why great pains would have been taken to assure that level of accuracy on the national scale. It was the electoral vote that counted. Each state needed to make sure that its electors were chosen correctly, and only in Florida was there enough of a dispute to make a detailed examination necessary. The official difference in Florida's vote between Bush and Gore comes to about 0.009 of a percent, and, of course, there are still those who dispute this result.

Who cares about "difference in Florida's vote" when we are discussing the difference between maintaining the Electoral College or changing to a popular vote. THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD CONCERNS A QUESTION OF HOW THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ELECTED!! Those of us who support direct election via popular vote see the latest example of it's failure as a valid reason for eliminating the Electoral College. The wrong man won!

Besides, who are you trying to kid? 540,000 votes is not some "statistical" issue. It is something that can be accurately counted, vote by vote. There will not be that many "erroneous votes" in a 540,000 vote majority; a person receiving that many will still be the popular vote winner.
 
Would you like to see it increase dramatically? Yes, more populated states receive a great deal more electoral votes. However, once you remove those states with their single-digit numbers, you're looking at incredibly little incentive.
Not what I think he meant. The Presidential candidates only reserve their attention for the population centers in the swing states.

253 election campaign events:
Figure-9.1-2012-Swing-States.jpg
 
Not what I think he meant. The Presidential candidates only reserve their attention for the population centers in the swing states.

253 election campaign events:
View attachment 67151719

Yes, I know they do that now. However, if you notice that at the very least they throw resources into areas with less population centers, and those areas which have different interests than those in the urban or coastal areas. What I am stating is that the outcome will grow significantly worse with more democracy, not less.
 
Yes, I know they do that now. However, if you notice that at the very least they throw resources into areas with less population centers, and those areas which have different interests than those in the urban or coastal areas. What I am stating is that the outcome will grow significantly worse with more democracy, not less.
Only one out of the 20 smallest states received an investment from the campaigns. There's no possible way to get worse than that.
 
"popular vote" isn't democracy....it's "mob rule"

Actually, popular vote is the definition of Democracy. The drafters of our Constitution were very much afraid of it which is why they created a "Republic." They only allowed Representatives to be elected by popular vote. President's had to be chosen through electors, and Senator's were apointed by their States. Of course, Federal judges were appointed too.

This elitist attitude was one of the reasons why many Revolutionary leaders opposed the new Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Only one out of the 20 smallest states received an investment from the campaigns. There's no possible way to get worse than that.

Your map shows it was two states, Vermont and Iowa. This by reason of their alleged "weathervane" status.
 
Only one out of the 20 smallest states received an investment from the campaigns. There's no possible way to get worse than that.

Two, plus arguably others by regional similarities or economic similarities. Yes, there is. If you induce more democracy by believing that one man=one vote is the base philosophy of the country, you'll see those regions become far more ignored. It is in the interests of us small states to advocate for an even more disproportionate voice in the elections, just as we had in the Senate.
 
Your map shows it was two states, Vermont and Iowa. This by reason of their alleged "weathervane" status.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

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. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

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

NationalPopularVote
 
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."

The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included 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.

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 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).

With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

When and where voters matter, then so do the issues they care about most.

In total, so far, the National Popular Vote bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium, and large states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
 
If you induce more democracy by believing that one man=one vote is the base philosophy of the country, you'll see those regions become far more ignored. It is in the interests of us small states to advocate for an even more disproportionate voice in the elections, just as we had in the Senate.

Winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11.

80% of the states and voters were ignored in 2012. One cannot be MORE ignored than ignored.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Even in the recent handful of states where a presidential vote matters to the candidates, the value of a vote is different.

Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election. None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual. About 80% of the country was ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. It was more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

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

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 [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]

In apportionment of federal grants by the executive branch, swing states received about 7.6% more federal grants and about 5.7% more federal grant money between 1992 and 2008 than would be expected based on patterns in other 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.

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, and Pacific Rim trade issues.

“Maybe it is just a coincidence that most of the battleground states decided by razor-thin margins in 2008 have been blessed with a No Child Left Behind exemption. “ Wall Street Journal

As of June 7, 2012 “Six current heavily traveled Cabinet members, have made more than 85 trips this year to electoral battlegrounds such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a POLITICO review of public speeches and news clippings. Those swing-state visits represent roughly half of all travel for those six Cabinet officials this year.”
 
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

Of course, the NPV crowd would seek to distort the issue by saying "this isn't Athens."

With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Interesting how they do not suggest how small states would be better served by more mass democracy, isn't it?
 
Actually, popular vote is the definition of Democracy. The drafters of our Constitution were very much afraid of it which is why they created a "Republic." . . .

This elitist attitude was one of the reasons why many Revolutionary leaders opposed the new Constitution.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
 
Yes, I know they do that now. However, if you notice that at the very least they throw resources into areas with less population centers, and those areas which have different interests than those in the urban or coastal areas. What I am stating is that the outcome will grow significantly worse with more democracy, not less.

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

16% of Americans live in rural areas.

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

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

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

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

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
 
Alright, if I am going to converse with someone, at least have the decency to talk instead of copy and paste.
 
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

Learn a little bit about context. I was responding to a member who claimed Democracy was "mob rule;" not trying to state our nation was, in fact, a Democracy.
 
That's the current rule, in connection with the Electoral College. If we did away with the Electoral College, we'd have to also change this rule, I think. I don't think we'd ever be able to resolve the popular vote down to a difference of one or two votes, so we'd probably have to set a threshold of closeness, and if the election is closer than that margin, call it a “tie” and leave it to Congress to determine the winner. Otherwise, a close election would result in Florida 2000 on a national scale.

The difference was very well within the margin of error in the count as it existed. There were quite a bit more uncounted absentee votes in California alone than that. They weren't counted, because without them, California's outcome was already established, but if we were going by national popular vote, then it would have been necessary to count them. As California's absentee votes generally tend to lean significantly more conservative than the non-absentee votes, it's very likely that this, alone, would have shifted the popular vote to Bush's side.

But then just imagine also, what happened in Florida, happening on a national scale, with fifty different states, and fifty different voting systems, each one being examined in painstaking detail to figure out what errors they might introduce, and to determine which, if any of them, might have biased their results one way or another. I say that if this had happened, that even by now, eight years after the end of the term for which that election was being held, that we still could not have known for sure who the legitimate winner was.

National Popular Vote would prevent an election from being tied in electoral votes and decided in the House of Representatives.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill would take effect only when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at
U. S. Electoral College 2008 Election

The likelihood that absentee ballots might trigger a dispute in a presidential election is higher under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system than under a system in which there is a single national pool of votes.

The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.

The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

With both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

The possibility of disputes over absentee ballots is an example of a potential problem that is more likely to occur, and more likely to matter, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system than the National Popular Vote plan.
 
Except they wouldn't. Rural areas would probably be completely ignored. It costs a lot to campaign or advertise in rural areas, and with so few people living there that it would only affect the vote a little, a politician would never do anything to try and win their votes.

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

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

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

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural areas. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

Vermont has enacted the National Popular Vote bill. The Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill.

NationalPopularVote
 
Back
Top Bottom