- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,717
- Reaction score
- 12,265
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
On the other hand your 20 farmers likely cancel out the votes of 20,000 New Yorkers. Is that a better result?
-
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!
New York does away with Electoral College
- Thread starter TheDemSocialist
- Start date
On the other hand your 20 farmers likely cancel out the votes of 20,000 New Yorkers. Is that a better result?
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
BINGO! That's the point friend. And Demsocialist is all for fundementally changing America.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This just shows utter ignorance and lack of any historical understanding of the term "Representative Republic". You are RIGHT, it's not really a democracy, it wasn't ever intended to be a democracy. The founding fathers understood what a bad idea a democracy is.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,000
- Reaction score
- 5,430
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
This is great. I can't wait until enough states sign it that they reach the 270 needed for it to take effect. I never thought I'd see the electoral college go away, but it's looking like I might get to after all.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that 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 recent or past 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%.
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
NationalPopularVote
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Only when it goes into effect, with the needed 270 electoral votes to guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, will the National Popular Vote bill ensure that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No state is ceding power to the Federal Government or voters from other states.
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 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 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).
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.
States enacting National Popular Vote are ensuring that their states and their voters are politically relevant in presidential campaigns and beyond.
Now 80% of states and voters are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns. We 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.
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 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 the handful of ‘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]
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
The state-by-state winner-take-all rule adversely affects governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
** “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
** “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
** A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
** The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
** Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”
The effect of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.
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.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates campaigning and winning only in big cities.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
With the current state-by-state winner take all method (not mentioned, much less endorsed in the Constitution), 80% of states and voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.
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 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 presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
The National Popular Vote bill is a state law, enacted by states, to replace their current state laws for how to award their electoral votes.
It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. We would continue to vote state by state.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ Electoral College votes of the enacting states.
We would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.
National Popular Vote 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.
AliHajiSheik
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 12,548
- Reaction score
- 4,369
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't care about polls, the only polls that matter are the ones that actually can change something. I still think it is crap that states pass these changes contingent on other states voting. If they believe in the change then they can make it effective now and now wait until a "sufficient" number of other states pass similar legislation.
I expect my vote to be equal to my neighbors vote, I don't care about being equal to someone in Wyoming or California.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. 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.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,581
- Reaction score
- 55,213
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That's great but we're supposed to be a union of several states with each citizen responsible to their state first and to the union second. It is the states that are supposed to elect the president. When we remove that right from the states and grant it to the nation as a whole we chop a huge slice out of the core of Republicanism.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 17,911
- Reaction score
- 10,808
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
No, it means their guy lost, same as if it were a direct vote and their guy got fewer votes than someone else.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 17,911
- Reaction score
- 10,808
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Probably a good thing he didn't say that it was, then.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 34,975
- Reaction score
- 19,433
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What happens when there is a recount?
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 34,975
- Reaction score
- 19,433
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So far the total number of electoral votes tied into this scheme are 165. To see the effect this pact has on the 2016 Presidential Election outcome I decided to use the 2012 election as an example. In 2012 there were a total of 124 million votes cast across all states. So a voter's share of the the electoral process (I will call it "Voting Power") would be the number of Electoral votes the voter is voting to assign divided by the total number of voters who cast a ballot for those votes.
So, for instance, here in VA my vote power would be 13EV/3,888,186. For simplicity sake I then multiply the result by 1 million to get my Vote Power Score of 3.34
In 2012 The NY voter's vote power would be 31EV/7,128,852*1mil. That makes their Vote Power: 4.34
So the average New Yorker had about a 30% higher vote power than a Virginian in 2012. But what about 2016?
Well, New Yorkers will now -- assuming the same turnout -- have a vote power of 165EV/124,026,000*1mil. That makes their Vote power in 2016 only 1.33
BUT WAIT!! It gets better! Because of this scheme I now have that same 1.33 Voting power from the collective since I now essentially vote in all the pact states as well as my own state. So my voting power will be 4.67 ... or 350% higher than the average New Yorker.
Good job Governor Cuomo!!
So, for instance, here in VA my vote power would be 13EV/3,888,186. For simplicity sake I then multiply the result by 1 million to get my Vote Power Score of 3.34
In 2012 The NY voter's vote power would be 31EV/7,128,852*1mil. That makes their Vote Power: 4.34
So the average New Yorker had about a 30% higher vote power than a Virginian in 2012. But what about 2016?
Well, New Yorkers will now -- assuming the same turnout -- have a vote power of 165EV/124,026,000*1mil. That makes their Vote power in 2016 only 1.33
BUT WAIT!! It gets better! Because of this scheme I now have that same 1.33 Voting power from the collective since I now essentially vote in all the pact states as well as my own state. So my voting power will be 4.67 ... or 350% higher than the average New Yorker.
Good job Governor Cuomo!!
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.
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 creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
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.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to 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.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations. "Voting power" math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.
New York, like 80% of the states and voters, have no "voting power" under the current system.
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.
80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
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 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 the handful of ‘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]
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
The state-by-state winner-take-all rule adversely affects governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
** “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
** “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
** A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
** The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
** Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”
The effect of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.
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.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 18,233
- Reaction score
- 15,861
- Location
- veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Too much political ideological hogwash wrapped in revisionist history for me to waste my time on right now.
Sorry you spent so much time writing that, but you chose the wrong guy to fish for a response to that mess.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 21,004
- Reaction score
- 10,102
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So instead of winner take all how about let the winners of the state get the 2 extra electors and the rest of the electors of the state are elected by the district vote?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
- Messages
- 62,217
- Reaction score
- 20,700
- Location
- IL—16
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
This has been discussed in Pensylvania by the GOP since their victories there in 2010.
For some reason, they haven't pulled this particular "nuclear" trigger yet .
For some reason, they haven't pulled this particular "nuclear" trigger yet .
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 21,004
- Reaction score
- 10,102
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What's nuclear about it? I wish it was that way in California. If it was we would be a major swing state again amongst other things. Winner of the state popular vote would still get +2 electoral votes.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
once the electoral college is gone, we are a full representative democracy....which is a democratic form of government.
the constitution guarantees a......... republican form of government.
since it is no longer guaranteed, those states which do not want a democratic form of government, do not have to stay in the union.- federalist 39
according to constitutional law, all states and the federal government must be republican, if not a state MUST LEAVE THE UNION, IT CANNOT STAY...however when Oregon started the democratic movement it was not forced out of the union like it should have been.
the constitution guarantees a......... republican form of government.
since it is no longer guaranteed, those states which do not want a democratic form of government, do not have to stay in the union.- federalist 39
according to constitutional law, all states and the federal government must be republican, if not a state MUST LEAVE THE UNION, IT CANNOT STAY...however when Oregon started the democratic movement it was not forced out of the union like it should have been.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,717
- Reaction score
- 12,265
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
From Websters 1828 dictionary -
Republic
1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.
The definition, which was operative during the drafting of our constitution and which we can assume is the definition the drafters used, says nothing about how our representatives or the executive are chosen.
As far as I can tell the term representative democracy didn't even exist at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.
I'd also point out that our representatives are constrained by the Constitution not by the manner in which they are chosen.