The electoral college

for goodness sake, please stop spamming your cut and paste drivel.

I understand what you are advocating and it is a way around changing the Constitution which you know can't happen. It is also subject to the fact that any state can change their mind at any point which is another opportunity to cause chaos in other states.

I understand that you want a national referendum but there are 50+ state-level elections, not a single national election.

As for your polls, *YAWN*

AliHajiSheik said:

for goodness sake, please stop spamming your cut and paste drivel.

I understand what you are advocating and it is a way around changing the Constitution which you know can't happen. It is also subject to the fact that any state can change their mind at any point which is another opportunity to cause chaos in other states.

I understand that you want a national referendum but there are 50+ state-level elections, not a single national election.

As for your polls, *YAWN*

Click to expand...

One more time.

National Popular Vote changes NOTHING in the Constitution.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. We do and would vote state by state.

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

"Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate."

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."

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

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.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

mvymvy said:

One more time.

National Popular Vote changes NOTHING in the Constitution.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. We do and would vote state by state.

Click to expand...

Please allow me to show you how it's done. Your walls of text are ineffective. It's better to identify your opponents points simple, and address them directly

Proportional assignment of a states electors does not "go around" the constitution because:

1) The constitution has no requirement that states assign all their electors to the candidate who gets the most votes in that state

2) Assigning the votes proportionally not only does not "go around" the letter of the law, it does not "go around" it's intent. It is obvious that the Framers concern for a states sovereignity led it to allow the states to decide for themselves how to assign the electors. Requiring a "winner takes all" assignment would have been a restriction on a states ability to do as it wished.

mvymvy said:

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression.

Click to expand...

And you don't think a national popular vote would be worse? Amazing.

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

Click to expand...

It's not about individuals, it's about states. That we are a UNION of states. When places like California and New York rule the nation, are doom is CERTAIN.

sangha said:

Please allow me to show you how it's done. Your walls of text are ineffective. It's better to identify your opponents points simple, and address them directly

Proportional assignment of a states electors does not "go around" the constitution because:

1) The constitution has no requirement that states assign all their electors to the candidate who gets the most votes in that state

2) Assigning the votes proportionally not only does not "go around" the letter of the law, it does not "go around" it's intent. It is obvious that the Framers concern for a states sovereignity led it to allow the states to decide for themselves how to assign the electors. Requiring a "winner takes all" assignment would have been a restriction on a states ability to do as it wished.

Click to expand...

1) Exactly. The choice of method was left exclusively to the states 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 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.

2) By enacting National Popular Vote, states are deciding for themselves how to assign their electors. States are exercising their responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Gaius46 said:

But you're fine with Florida and Ohio doing so?

Moving away from winner takes all does no such thing.

Click to expand...

They didn't make the decision for the whole country alone, it was a bunch of other states including Florida and Ohio that helped decided who the president is.

I'm fine with staying with the EC system, fine with changing it. There are abuses possible either way. Just pick one and let us know so we know what to expect come election time.

Arbo said:

And you don't think a national popular vote would be worse? Amazing.

It's not about individuals, it's about states. That we are a UNION of states. When places like California and New York rule the nation, are doom is CERTAIN.

Click to expand...

80% of the states have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. When and where states are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states now are completely politically irrelevant. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 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. In 2008, presidential campaigns spent 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. Once the conventions are over, presidential candidates now don’t visit or spend resources in 80% of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. States have the responsibility and power to make themselves relevant in every presidential election.


The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in 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 include 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).

clownboy said:

I'm fine with staying with the EC system, fine with changing it. There are abuses possible either way. Just pick one and let us know so we know what to expect come election time.

Click to expand...

I am against changing it, as we see more and more examples of uninformed voters... no way in hell I want them in charge of things. DC is bad enough now.

jamesrage said:

They didn't make the decision for the whole country alone, it was a bunch of other states including Florida and Ohio that helped decided who the president is.

Click to expand...

Follow the money.

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 that decide the presidency have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

mvymvy said:

80% of the states have been merely spectators to presidential elections.

Click to expand...

What the hell do you think they will be if there was a big pooled together national popular vote?? Just as many, if not more, would not matter.

I did not bother reading the rest of your wall of text which is clearly cut and paste propaganda.

mvymvy said:

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

Click to expand...

That you want more states 'showered' with attention might be considered cruel by some. "Oh gee, how great! Now I get bombarded with lying ad's from both sides all day and night! Yipee!" ...

Arbo said:

I am against changing it, as we see more and more examples of uninformed voters... no way in hell I want them in charge of things. DC is bad enough now.

Click to expand...

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. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in 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!

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. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. 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).

Arbo said:

That you want more states 'showered' with attention might be considered cruel by some. "Oh gee, how great! Now I get bombarded with lying ad's from both sides all day and night! Yipee!" ...

Click to expand...

Presidential candidates currently do everything within their power to raise as much money as they possibly can from donors throughout the country. They then allocate their time and the money that they raise nationally to places where it will do the most good toward their goal of winning the election.

Candidates would spend their money more broadly (that is, in all 50 states and DC).

If every vote mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would reallocate their time and the money they raise.

Arbo said:

What the hell do you think they will be if there was a big pooled together national popular vote?? Just as many, if not more, would not matter.

I did not bother reading the rest of your wall of text which is clearly cut and paste propaganda.

Click to expand...

Political reality, that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

Arbo said:

That you want more states 'showered' with attention might be considered cruel by some. "Oh gee, how great! Now I get bombarded with lying ad's from both sides all day and night! Yipee!" ...

Click to expand...

For me, the issue isn't about which states should receive advertising, and whether or not that's a good thing

It's about whether it is good for our national policies to be influenced by the need to kowtow to one specific states interests, even if those interests are not in the nations best interests.

Take ethanol from corn, for example. It's not a great idea, but it's going to be hard to get politicians to be against it when it's in Iowa's interest to have it supported with govt subsidies.

sangha said:

For me, the issue isn't about which states should receive advertising, and whether or not that's a good thing

It's about whether it is good for our national policies to be influenced by the need to kowtow to one specific states interests, even if those interests are not in the nations best interests.

Take ethanol from corn, for example. It's not a great idea, but it's going to be hard to get politicians to be against it's in Iowa's interest to have it supported with govt subsidies.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

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]

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

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.

“Maybe it is just a coincidence that most of the battleground states decided by razor-thin margins in 2008 have been blessed with a No Child Left Behind exemption. “ – Wall Street Journal , June 5, 2012

As of June 7, 2012 “Six current heavily traveled Cabinet members, have made more than 85 trips this year to electoral battlegrounds such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a POLITICO review of public speeches and news clippings. Those swing-state visits represent roughly half of all travel for those six Cabinet officials this year.”

mvymvy said:

Political advertisement deleted.

Click to expand...

Who do you work for?

mvymvy said:

Follow the money.

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 that decide the presidency have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Click to expand...

This is due to primaries being scattered though out several months instead of just being on the same day all across the country. Which is why I favor primaries being held on the same day all across the country just like the main presidential election is held on the same day all across the country.

jamesrage said:

This is due to primaries being scattered though out several months instead of just being on the same day all across the country. Which is why I favor primaries being held on the same day all across the country just like the main presidential election is held on the same day all across the country.

Click to expand...

It's not due to the primaries.

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

I'm leaving this discussion. Tired of being bombarded by text.

The implication that states do not matter even though they all do is more a result of the Federalization of everything than the Electoral College. The deference to parties as well which are also not I'm the constitutionals it harder for alternative parties to grow.

Having to run a complete national campaign forever enshrines the two parties as there is no opportunity to pick off a state or two to demonstrate viability.

The continued nonsense about everyone's vote not being equal is again a national point of view when these are still state elections.

Out of here.

Arbo said:

And you don't think a national popular vote would be worse? Amazing.



It's not about individuals, it's about states. That we are a UNION of states. When places like California and New York rule the nation, are doom is CERTAIN.

Click to expand...

So how does the electoral college keep us from being ruled by Ca and NY?

jamesrage said:

They didn't make the decision for the whole country alone, it was a bunch of other states including Florida and Ohio that helped decided who the president is.

Click to expand...

No they didn't. A very small number of undecided voters in those states did.

Like it or not the practical consequence of the EC and the winner-take-all rules of most states is that a minute - as compared to the total population of the nation - number of voters in a handful of states decide for the rest of us.

So once again how does the EC protect you from us evil New Yorkers?

Gaius46 said:

No they didn't. A very small number of undecided voters in those states did.

Like it or not the practical consequence of the EC and the winner-take-all rules of most states is that a minute - as compared to the total population of the nation - number of voters in a handful of states decide for the rest of us.

So once again how does the EC protect you from us evil New Yorkers?

Click to expand...

I know some like yourself think the Electoral College as a fusty relic of a bygone era, an unnecessary institution that one day might undermine democracy by electing a minority. but did any of you feel that way when JFK was elected on the basis of the electoral vote? No of course not. This attempt to overthrow the electoral college is just another effort to destroy another institution that has added to the success of this country. It ain't broken yet you all want to change it...why? I will tell you why because the Constitution is the only thing standing in the way of the left in reforming this country into some European Socialist country.

Another history lesson...
James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these twofold divisions — the separation of powers and federalism — provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Oh well to Constitution Shredders, such fidelity will strike some as blind adherence to the past. For those skeptics, I would point out two other advantages the Electoral College offers.

First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas. And we all know those areas are Democratic strongholds. So what are you wanting to do with a popular vote is make every election a Democratic win?
Yes, I definitely think that is what is behind this effort to tear down the institution of the Electoral College.

Another thing to think about is...
The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

Also, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an important part of our federalist system — a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power, And on that note I must say I have never met a leftie that was interested in restraining the power of the federal government. Hell they want the federal government to be the answer to all their needs without responsibility and Uncle Sam the father/provider for most of their children.

If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic.

Arbo said:

What the hell do you think they will be if there was a big pooled together national popular vote?? Just as many, if not more, would not matter.

I did not bother reading the rest of your wall of text which is clearly cut and paste propaganda.

Click to expand...

I have never once seen you provide a fact on this site... multiple times people present arguments toward you, including myself, that are factual or detailed, and you just deny everything they say and make a claim how the idea is horrible, and then you back it up with nothing. Can not tell if you are trolling or not.

The point is in California there are millions of votes for Republican candidates that do not count, they get not one elector from California, the other party gets 50 something. This happens to Democrats in Texas as well. If you live in Montana you know your vote means hardly anything, 3 electoral votes most likely will have no affect on the election. Do you support this system just because you want to be a hardcore, some how more "American", "States-Rights" Constitutionalist, or do honestly think it is a fair way to elect the president of the WHOLE United States.