New York does away with Electoral College

Erod said:

By all means, let's let Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York decide all things for all people in all places.

Click to expand...

16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

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.

Zyphlin said:

I'm not in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, but I don't feel strongly about it and if it's voted out then I'm fine with it.

But I find this particular method to be extremely distasteful and wrong. For all the complaints that the electoral college devalues the votes of some individuals in a state, this would do so even greater. If 80% of a state went towards one candidate, but the popular vote went another way, then that states population would essentially have been deprived of their ability to vote in the federal system of note in this country. That's amazingly wrong in my mind.

If you want to get rid of it then go about the actions to get rid of it. Actions like this however just seem like foot stomping temper tantrums that set up more harm than good.

Click to expand...

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

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 state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2,

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all statutes 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 later 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 voter 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 voter, 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 votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

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, every popular 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 voter 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.

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

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to decide how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, 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, without federal constitutional amendments.

AliHajiSheik said:

The electoral college isn't going anywhere. Any state that joins this compact can easily withdraw. When the majority in a state goes for candidate D and their electoral votes go to candidate R, there will be serious howling.

There is still nothing to prevent faithless electors so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter 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. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

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 voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter 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 voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter 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 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.

mvymvy said:

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

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:
“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 Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

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

Click to expand...

You say that the founding fathers did not anticipate that the method we use today to select electors, then you reference Article II, section 1 which precisely assigns the task to each state legislature do decide how electors are appointed. That seems contradictory to me. Seems to me that pretty much any method, including this National Popular Vote proposal, selected by a state legislature is in compliance with the Constitution. The fact that I believe all had a winner take all and then 2 (NE and ME) decided to go to district voting tells me that the method was pretty popular. I have no idea how long that was the case, but whatever.

My assertion is that the National Popular Vote is the worst method of selecting electors of all the Constitutional methods I've heard. I don't think any state's electors should be decided by voting that takes place in other states.

Slyhunter said:

If we got rid of the electoral college candidates would only need to actively run in California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The rest of the country will no longer matter.

Click to expand...

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) 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).

Lutherf said:

It's not outdated.

The result of dissolution of the electoral college will be the removal of one more hedge against federal supremacy. Little by little the states are ceding their power and their responsibilities to the federal government. In time the states will become nothing more than the answer to a trivia question and state governments will be strictly figurative. There will be no restraints on the federal government which will become more and more insulated from the people who will have less and less autonomy as we transition from a nation based on natural rights into one based on civil rights.

Click to expand...

National Popular Vote does not abolish the Electoral College.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

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.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

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.

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

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, 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 and the majority of Electoral College votes.

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

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

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

We've been attacked by the Popular Vote Robot.

AliHajiSheik said:

You say that the founding fathers did not anticipate that the method we use today to select electors, then you reference Article II, section 1 which precisely assigns the task to each state legislature do decide how electors are appointed. That seems contradictory to me. Seems to me that pretty much any method, including this National Popular Vote proposal, selected by a state legislature is in compliance with the Constitution. The fact that I believe all had a winner take all and then 2 (NE and ME) decided to go to district voting tells me that the method was pretty popular. I have no idea how long that was the case, but whatever.

My assertion is that the National Popular Vote is the worst method of selecting electors of all the Constitutional methods I've heard. I don't think any state's electors should be decided by voting that takes place in other states.

Click to expand...

Yes. Any method, including the National Popular Vote proposal, selected by a state legislature is in compliance with the Constitution.

A majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the methods rejected by the Founders in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

The current statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. ) 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 Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent.

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

Massachusetts has used 11 different methods of awarding its electoral votes.

Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992 chose the district method.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The NPV states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.” - Vikram David Amar

We have seen a move since 2010 from Republicans in Pennsylvania to move to the Congressional District method of alloting Electoral votes,
as currently happens in small states Nebraska and Maine.
Especially with their admitted Gerry-mandered Federal Remap from the 2010 election.

Obama would have received less EVs than Romney in the 2012 election from PA.
It is legal and the "nuclear" option of the electoral college .

mvymvy said:

Yes. Any method, including the National Popular Vote proposal, selected by a state legislature is in compliance with the Constitution.

A majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the methods rejected by the Founders in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

The current statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. ) 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 Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent.

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

Massachusetts has used 11 different methods of awarding its electoral votes.

Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992 chose the district method.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The NPV states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.” - Vikram David Amar

Click to expand...

Vikram and I disagree, a state that bases their electoral allocation using a method this is in disagreement with the majority of the citizens that state is inherently wrong. Some people hate that the states don't do what they want, I applaud the states.

If 100% of a states votes are for candidate A but because the majority of a national vote count (that cannot be recounted if it is close) goes to candidate B, I can't think of a more abhorrent result for that state.

mvymvy said:

National Popular Vote does not abolish the Electoral College.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

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.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

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.

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

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, 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 and the majority of Electoral College votes.

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

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

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

Click to expand...

While your response is very informed and refreshingly unbiased I think you're wrong about this process preserving the electoral college. In fact I believe it pretty much obviates that function.

That being said, I would agree that the current process is corrupted by party influence on the electors and especially by the "winner takes all" policies of a few states. We really can't (or shouldn't) mandate, at the federal level, that electors be independent but this type of legislation is contrary to the basic principles of proportionally representational government that we have guaranteed ourselves through the Constitution.

In short, I see moves like this (and the 17th amendment) as attempts to nationalize the vote while undercutting the power of the individual voter.

Lutherf said:

While your response is very informed and refreshingly unbiased I think you're wrong about this process preserving the electoral college. In fact I believe it pretty much obviates that function.

That being said, I would agree that the current process is corrupted by party influence on the electors and especially by the "winner takes all" policies of a few states. We really can't (or shouldn't) mandate, at the federal level, that electors be independent but this type of legislation is contrary to the basic principles of proportionally representational government that we have guaranteed ourselves through the Constitution.

In short, I see moves like this (and the 17th amendment) as attempts to nationalize the vote while undercutting the power of the individual voter.

Click to expand...

I don't think 20 farmers producing edible products in the Midwest on 20,000 acres of land should have their vote cancelled out by 20 people in a single apartment building in New York. There's more to it than one person, one vote.

Population density and reproductive capability shouldn't rule alone.

mvymvy said:

National Popular Vote does not do away with the Electoral College.

In 1789, only 3 states used the "winner-take-all" system based on the statewide popular vote. Similar laws in other states only became prevalent decades after the deaths of the Founding Fathers. 2 states do not use the system.

Fly over country is FLOWN OVER. Ignored. Politically irrelevant. That's what it means.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. 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 and would be 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).

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences.

Click to expand...

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention feared concentrated power and intended the states to be a potent check on the national government. They included five provisions for this purpose:



1. Enumerated powers, reconfirmed by the 10th amendment

2. Equal state representation in the Senate

3. Senators elected by state legislatures

4. Limited national taxing authority

5. An Electoral College

When you look at that list, over the last 100 years all have been watered down or changed with the exception of the Electoral College which is now under attack. Unfortunately, few in Washington consider the enumerated powers (Tenth Amendment) a constraint. The 16th Amendment forever changed #3 and #4. Because of the 16th Amendment Congress can collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived and Senators are now popularly elected and have more allegiance to their party than their state. It is at the core of why we have an imbalance of power with an every growing authoritarian federal government. Now the Electoral College is under attack. To remove it would send us closer to a Democracy rather than a Republic.

National Popular Vote Compact Law circumvents the Constitution. What it proposes amounts to rigging the Electoral College. One could compare it to the likes of President Barack Obama's abuse of the law through his extensive use of executive orders.

mvymvy said:

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.

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 later 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 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

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.

With National Popular Vote, every voter 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.

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

16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

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.

Click to expand...

Hence the reason winner take all needs to go the way of the dodo bird. There are two things needed to clean up the presidential elections a bit and make the swing states no longer swing states but states the same as any other. That is get rid of winner take all. That means every district a say in electing the president including in the solid red and blue states. The red and blue states still get 2 extra electors for winning a state and the swing states are much less important in the grand scheme of things. National popular vote would exacerbate the problem of the swing states except instead of whole states being courted it would be just certain cities because that is were the people are. California is a prime example of why popular vote is not good idea especially nationally. California is both rural and metropolitan and has the needs and problems of both many of which are mutually exclusive. There are three cities that control California LA SF and SAC. They together have just enough population to cancel out the rural populations like Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding ect. That's why you here all the talk about the state separating into different states because Sacramento is dominated by the cities now, which means the rural areas are getting the shaft especially in tight years. Right now Sacramento is trying to ban fracking in this state even though the basic method was developed here over 60 years ago and has been in use for that long. Sacramento is also denying water to the farmers in the central valley. Oil and Ag are THE two major industries of central California, yet the cities representatives are doing their best to inhibit these industries by taking their water they paid for and denying them permits to drill or frack even though an agreement was supposedly reached.

Slyhunter said:

They won't reach 270.

Click to expand...

Yea they will. They are 61% there already.

Doesnt the winner-take-all system of the electorial college disenfranchise people that live in solid blue or red states if they vote opposite of their states leanings?

TheDemSocialist said:

Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_35DiUNLZI
More found @: New York joins campaign to end Electoral College role in presidential elections - NY Daily News

Honestly, I think we should get rid of the electoral college. I believe it only makes sense. If we are a democracy, why not be a democracy that elects its highest leader? I mean it only makes sense.. I mean I know what some people are going to say, "hey we arent a democracy, we are a republic!". But you can be a republic and a democracy at the same time. The electoral college is outdated and irrational with our political climate and system.

Click to expand...

the original idea was to never be a direct democracy,but a representative democracy.part of the reason for the electoral college was because without it politicians would only campaign nationwide instead of in different locals.the issue is that cities hold large amounts of population,therefore politicians will cater to big cities and igore rural america.

the electoral college has worked fine,the only issue i have is winner take all states,making a 51 to 49 vote mean that 49 dont count,rather than granting electoral votes based off precinct.

beerftw said:

the original idea was to never be a direct democracy,but a representative democracy.part of the reason for the electoral college was because without it politicians would only campaign nationwide instead of in different locals.the issue is that cities hold large amounts of population,therefore politicians will cater to big cities and igore rural america.

the electoral college has worked fine,the only issue i have is winner take all states,making a 51 to 49 vote mean that 49 dont count,rather than granting electoral votes based off precinct.

Click to expand...

Maybe it should be by precinct, but that's up to the individual states to decide for themselves, not for other states to force them to do it.

Slyhunter said:

Maybe it should be by precinct, but that's up to the individual states to decide for themselves, not for other states to force them to do it.

Click to expand...

quite true its up to the states,my point was its orignal intent was to balance power between urban and rural,but winner takes all basically diminishes that power,,and isnt too far away from mob rule of direct democracy.

Why is it that some people think the Constitution is a document that GIVES power rather than LIMITING power?

All power in this country as stated in the Constitution resides in the several states and the people. There are certain VERY LIMITED and enumerated powers that are bestowed BY THE PEOPLE to the Federal government via the Constitution. Bestowed, which means the PEOPLE can take them back by Constitutional Amendment.

The Electoral College is and has been a barracked against tyranny. The States make up the Union, not the other way around. Each state determines how it will allocate its Electors to the Electoral College vote. Some states are all or nothing; the candidate that gets the majority of the popular votes gets all the electoral votes. Some states are proportional; each candidate getting a representative number of electoral votes.

The Electoral College is a key part of our country and its basic make-up. Any state that votes to cede its power to the Federal Government or voters from other states deserves exactly what it will get in return - irrelevancy.

Lutherf said:

Democracy is simply a step toward totalitarianism. The sad part is that most people won't realize that we've stepped off that cliff even after we hit bottom.

Click to expand...

If the wacky-do electoral college system is all that stands between you and totalitarianism, you're already doomed.

Slyhunter said:

If we got rid of the electoral college candidates would only need to actively run in California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The rest of the country will no longer matter.

Click to expand...

And a voter in California will finally be equal to a voter in Wyoming. Secondly, the Republicans in California would have a reason to vote.

You may recall that the direct election of Senators is a relatively recent thing. It may also be pure coincidence but it also came hot on the heels of the 16th amendment. That was one hell of a year for the expansion of the federal government, wouldn't you say?

Click to expand...

You make it sound like this was a bad thing.

There is absolutely no reason to have 6 New England states. The overlaps in administration, differing taxes, different building and licensing codes, different education systems, inefficient road planning...Just because something was decided in the 18th century doesn't mean that changing it will bring totalitarianism.

Democracy is simply a step toward totalitarianism. The sad part is that most people won't realize that we've stepped off that cliff even after we hit bottom.

Click to expand...

Substitute "technology" for "democracy" and you're amish.

Amandi said:

Doesnt the winner-take-all system of the electorial college disenfranchise people that live in solid blue or red states if they vote opposite of their states leanings?

Click to expand...

shhhhhhh, thats different
as far as "presidential" voting goes i would be fine with a one for on popular vote.

now would i want all government to run this way, of course not because that is severly different but im fine with "elections" being most votes

bubbabgone said:

These are the States that voted for the National Popular Vote Interstate agreement so far...

1 Maryland 10 April 10, 2007
2 New Jersey 14 January 13, 2008
3 Illinois 20 April 7, 2008
4 Hawaii 4 May 1, 2008
5 Washington 12 April 28, 2009
6 Massachusetts 11 August 4, 2010
7 District of Columbia 3 December 7, 2010
8 Vermont 3 April 22, 2011
9 California 55 August 8, 2011
10 Rhode Island 4 July 12, 2013
11 New York 29 April 15, 2014

Now class ... can anyone tell me what they immediately notice about this list?

Click to expand...

9 of the states haven't actually implemented what they are agreeing too. They refuse to actually implement it until "enough" other states join this pseudo-suicide pact. If they truly believe that the national vote to determine the allocation of their states electoral votes, then why wait, just do it.