Thread: College campaigning

There is an idea growing steadily in popularity to abandon the electoral college altogether and have the popular vote officially decide the President.

I've got an idea that would cement the need for such a measure beyond a shadow of a doubt: Instead of spending hundreds of millions campaigning to the popular vote (which, officially, doesn't count for diddly), for a fraction of the cost, you can campaign directly to the Electoral College!

Think about it:

1. The Electoral College is not bound by the popular vote (which is the crux of the argument of those who support abolishing it),

2. Those chosen to be in the electoral college for each state should that party win the popular vote would be public record, making them easy to find, and

3. When you think about it, it's not like there's any law against campaigning directly to them!

Imagine if the Libertarian Party, with its scarce resources, actually contacted the Electoral Voters of both major parties for each state, and did their best to persuade these voters why they should betray the party that elected them and vote Libertarian, and the Libertarian party gets an out-of-nowhere victory without doing any conventional campaigning.

A lot of people think that, if the Libertarians could get mainstream attention, they would become the next major political party. Well, if they did this, the people would be pissed, but it'd be four years before they could do anything about it, and by then, the electoral college would be abolished (since now, they would have a tangible reason to do so), and after four years, maybe they'll have shown the people that they're actually a good party, and thus have won the people's approval for a legitimate re-election.

Thoughts?

They pretty much do that already, theres blue and red states and theres battleground states. Its all about the electoral vote count. They campaign in the states they need to get over the hump
A good example is for many years both candidates would inundate missouri with ads and appearances, it was a crucial electoral battleground state, now it is no longer and neither Obama or romney is paying any attention to missouri. In 2008 McCain and obama were all over missouri.

That doesn't count. They're still pandering to the popular vote.

I'm talking about finding the addresses and phone numbers of those chosen to be in the electoral college if that party wins the state, contacting those people and those people only, and then speaking to them in a series of 1-on-1 conversations, a la lobbyists.

Originally Posted by middleagedgamer

There is an idea growing steadily in popularity to abandon the electoral college altogether and have the popular vote officially decide the President.

I've got an idea that would cement the need for such a measure beyond a shadow of a doubt: Instead of spending hundreds of millions campaigning to the popular vote (which, officially, doesn't count for diddly), for a fraction of the cost, you can campaign directly to the Electoral College!

Think about it:

1. The Electoral College is not bound by the popular vote (which is the crux of the argument of those who support abolishing it),


Thoughts?

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."

State winner-take-all laws 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). The National Popular Vote bill would change state laws for 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 electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

The National Popular Vote 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. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

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.

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.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

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 virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

^^^But you're not addressing the CRUX of my opening post... unless I'm missing your point.

Originally Posted by middleagedgamer

^^^But you're not addressing the CRUX of my opening post... unless I'm missing your point.

State laws give the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

State winner-take-all [COLOR=#009900 !important]laws[/COLOR][COLOR=#009900 !important]award[/COLOR] all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

The National Popular Vote bill would change existing 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.