Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?

Bob wrote:I already see one obvious fly in that ointment.
Obviously,  with a process like that,  a candidate would concentrate most of his campaign in the densely populated states and regions which would give him the most votes for his effort.  Which would result in the less populated states/regions being effectively shut out from the process.

In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (, NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

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

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

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

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).

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

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

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

A survey of Florida voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 88% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among others.

By gender, support for a national popular vote was 88% among women and 69% among men.

By age, support for a national popular vote was 79% among 18-29 year olds, 78% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.

NationalPopularVote

oldgulph wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

That's a good thing.

oldgulph wrote:The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), by state laws.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.

[...]

The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

From Oldgulph:  "Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections"

Good sales tool but a flat out lie.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  Only the votes from 10 or 12 states would matter.  The remaining states might just as well take the day off since their votes would not matter.

As you know, abolishing the Electoral College would further hasten the destruction this country.

Candidates would only have to campaign and appeal to a dozen or fewer states.  There would be no reason for candidates to visit other states.  Those state being the most populated with be state with the largest cities and the majority on welfare, food stamps and other benefits like ObamaPhones.  That would mean much of the country would have no influence on the running of our country.

Such a change would further speed our decline into even more massive debt and spending.

Our nation should be strengthened by the repeal of the 17th Amendment.  We can see how debilitating it has been to have both houses represent the voters and no one to represent the States.  True taxation without representation.

The divisiveness would become incomprehensible.  A real move for the remaining "unimportant" states could become a reality.  It would not take long for those states to tire of being run by voters who are voting for more and more benefits and running us deeper and deeper into debt and destruction.

Markle wrote:

oldgulph wrote:The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), by state laws.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.

[...]

The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

From Oldgulph:  "Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections"

Good sales tool but a flat out lie.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  Only the votes from 10 or 12 states would matter.  The remaining states might just as well take the day off since their votes would not matter.

As you know, abolishing the Electoral College would further hasten the destruction this country.

Candidates would only have to campaign and appeal to a dozen or fewer states.  There would be no reason for candidates to visit other states.  Those state being the most populated with be state with the largest cities and the majority on welfare, food stamps and other benefits like ObamaPhones.  That would mean much of the country would have no influence on the running of our country.

Such a change would further speed our decline into even more massive debt and spending.

Our nation should be strengthened by the repeal of the 17th Amendment.  We can see how debilitating it has been to have both houses represent the voters and no one to represent the States.  True taxation without representation.

The divisiveness would become incomprehensible.  A real move for the remaining "unimportant" states could become a reality.  It would not take long for those states to tire of being run by voters who are voting for more and more benefits and running us deeper and deeper into debt and destruction.

No.

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.

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

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

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

NOW, Only the votes from 10 states matter.  The remaining states might just as well take the day off since their votes do not matter.

NOW, Candidates only campaign and appeal to a dozen or fewer states.  There is no reason for candidates to visit other states.

National Popular Vote does not abolish the Electoral College. The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College 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.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant, equal, counted, and matter to the candidates. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

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!

Markle wrote:As you know, abolishing the Electoral College would further hasten the destruction this country.

Markle, you agree that the electoral college effectively makes certain votes worth more than other votes, right?

Gore had a half million more votes than Bush, and lost.  What rational reason is there to assign more value to a certain group's votes, and less value to another group's votes?  I'm really interested in hearing any theoretical explanation for why that would be optimal.

oldgulph wrote:A survey of Florida voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 88% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among others.

By gender, support for a national popular vote was 88% among women and 69% among men.

By age, support for a national popular vote was 79% among 18-29 year olds, 78% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.

NationalPopularVote

Voters also favored Slavery, Prohibition, Women not voting, Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968. The majority of voters did NOT want ObamaCare and yet, through bribes, payoffs and most likely blackmail.

I saw the way the question was posed. Posed correctly you would have had a different result.

By the way, were those the results of scientific polls or non-scientific polls on web sites?

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:As you know, abolishing the Electoral College would further hasten the destruction this country.

Markle, you agree that the electoral college effectively makes certain votes worth more than other votes, right?

Gore had a half million more votes than Bush, and lost.  What rational reason is there to assign more value to a certain group's votes, and less value to another group's votes?  I'm really interested in hearing any theoretical explanation for why that would be optimal.

All Al Gore had to do was win his home state, the people who know him best...voted against him.

What you want are the 10 or 12 states which are the largest and have the largest dying cities would elect the President and everyone else in the country might as well stay home, their vote would not matter.

Yes, some votes count more than others.  Those in California count for 55 votes while votes in six other states only count for 3.  You're right, it is not fair, how about each state gets two votes?

Our country is a representative republic, NOT a Democracy better known as mob rule.

knothead wrote:  The USSR collapsed largely because of their adventures into Afghanistan and, like the USA, threw trillions of their rubles down a rabbit hole weakening their hold on their empire.      

And Ronnie Reagan put on a secret war to fight the rooskies and financed what would later become the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In effect, Ronnie was one of the fathers of mooslim terrorists.
The republicans always fail to mention that for some reason. lol

Our current system is not perfect, but the best.

Markle wrote:What you want are the 10 or 12 states which are the largest and have the largest dying cities would elect the President and everyone else in the country might as well stay home, their vote would not matter.

Yes, some votes count more than others.  Those in California count for 55 votes while votes in six other states only count for 3.  You're right, it is not fair, how about each state gets two votes?

Here again, you show us all that when you venture away from your copy-and-paste vault, you haven't even the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

Markle, California has 55 electoral votes.  California also has a population of 38,041,430.  Put another way, each single vote in California is worth 0.000001446 electoral votes.  Contrast that with a state like Alaska, which has 3 electoral votes and a population of 731,449.  Each single vote in Alaska is worth 0.000005205 electoral votes.  Do the math.

0.000005205 / 0.000001446 = 3.6

So one vote cast in Alaska is worth 3.6 times more electoral votes than one vote cast in California.  

Now, Markle, can you give me any theoretical explanation as to why it is more optimal to assign more value to certain votes and less value to others, particularly if the only assigning factor is geography?   I want you to support your rationale behind saying "People that live over there, their votes will be worth x.  And people that live over there, their votes will be worth 3x.  

And note that this doesn't even address the fact that if you were to live in California and you voted for Romney, your vote didn't even count at all! Same goes for those who live in Texas and voted for Obama. How is that optimal?

Here is a list of each state, its electoral votes, population, and the value of each vote in terms of electoral votes...all ranked in order.  Notice that single votes are worth the least in states with the most electoral votes, and vice versa.  


State Electoral votes Pop Per capita
California 55 38,041,430 0.000001446
Texas 38 26,059,203 0.000001458
New York 29 19,570,261 0.000001482
Florida 29 19,317,568 0.000001501
North Carolina 15 9,752,073 0.000001538
Illinois 20 12,875,255 0.000001553
Ohio 18 11,544,225 0.000001559
Pennsylvania 20 12,763,536 0.000001567
New Jersey 14 8,864,590 0.000001579
Virginia 13 8,185,867 0.000001588
Georgia 16 9,919,945 0.000001613
Michigan 16 9,883,360 0.000001619
Massachusetts 11 6,646,144 0.000001655
Missouri 10 6,021,988 0.000001661
Arizona 11 6,553,255 0.000001679
Indiana 11 6,537,334 0.000001683
Maryland 10 5,884,563 0.000001699
Tennessee 11 6,456,243 0.000001704
Colorado 9 5,187,582 0.000001735
Louisiana 8 4,601,893 0.000001738
Washington 12 6,897,012 0.000001740
Wisconsin 10 5,726,398 0.000001746
Oregon 7 3,899,353 0.000001795
Kentucky 8 4,380,415 0.000001826
Oklahoma 7 3,814,820 0.000001835
Minnesota 10 5,379,139 0.000001859
Alabama 9 4,822,023 0.000001866
South Carolina 9 4,723,723 0.000001905
Connecticut 7 3,590,347 0.000001950
Iowa 6 3,074,186 0.000001952
Mississippi 6 2,984,926 0.000002010
Arkansas 6 2,949,131 0.000002034
Kansas 6 2,885,905 0.000002079
Utah 6 2,855,287 0.000002101
Nevada 6 2,758,931 0.000002175
New Mexico 5 2,085,538 0.000002397
Idaho 4 1,595,728 0.000002507
Nebraska 5 1,855,525 0.000002695
West Virginia 5 1,855,413 0.000002695
Hawaii 4 1,392,313 0.000002873
Montana 3 1,005,141 0.000002985
Maine 4 1,329,192 0.000003009
New Hampshire 4 1,320,718 0.000003029
Delaware 3 917,092 0.000003271
South Dakota 3 833,354 0.000003600
Rhode Island 4 1,050,292 0.000003808
Alaska 3 731,449 0.000004101
North Dakota 3 699,628 0.000004288
District of Columbia 3 632,323 0.000004744
Vermont 3 626,011 0.000004792
Wyoming 3 576,412 0.000005205

Markle wrote:

oldgulph wrote:A survey of Florida voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 88% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among others.

By gender, support for a national popular vote was 88% among women and 69% among men.

By age, support for a national popular vote was 79% among 18-29 year olds, 78% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.

NationalPopularVote

Voters also favored Slavery, Prohibition, Women not voting, Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968.  The majority of voters did NOT want ObamaCare and yet, through bribes, payoffs and most likely blackmail.

I saw the way the question was posed.  Posed correctly you would have had a different result.

By the way, were those the results of scientific polls or non-scientific polls on web sites?

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).

Most Americans don't 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's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The Florida survey was conducted by Public Policy Polling

In the survey, voters were asked:
"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?"

http://nationalpopularvote.com/resources/FL-PPP-Poll-Results-Jan-2009.pdf

Markle wrote:What you want are the 10 or 12 states which are the largest and have the largest dying cities would elect the President and everyone else in the country might as well stay home, their vote would not matter.

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!

You are assuming and saying that almost 90+% of the voters in the 11 most populous states would vote for the same candidate, to elect a President with 50+% of U.S. voters -- with those big state voters alone.

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).

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Bob wrote:

knothead wrote:  The USSR collapsed largely because of their adventures into Afghanistan and, like the USA, threw trillions of their rubles down a rabbit hole weakening their hold on their empire.      

And Ronnie Reagan put on a secret war to fight the rooskies and financed what would later become the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  In effect,  Ronnie was one of the fathers of mooslim terrorists.  
The republicans always fail to mention that for some reason.  lol

"Secret War"! Did you get that from RENSE.COM or something similar.

PLEASE, show us some unassailable source for another of you wild conspiracies.

oldgulph wrote:

Markle wrote:

oldgulph wrote:A survey of Florida voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 88% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among others.

By gender, support for a national popular vote was 88% among women and 69% among men.

By age, support for a national popular vote was 79% among 18-29 year olds, 78% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.

NationalPopularVote

Voters also favored Slavery, Prohibition, Women not voting, Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968.  The majority of voters did NOT want ObamaCare and yet, through bribes, payoffs and most likely blackmail.

I saw the way the question was posed.  Posed correctly you would have had a different result.

By the way, were those the results of scientific polls or non-scientific polls on web sites?

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).

Most Americans don't 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's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The Florida survey was conducted by Public Policy Polling

In the survey, voters were asked:
"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?"

http://nationalpopularvote.com/resources/FL-PPP-Poll-Results-Jan-2009.pdf

The first question should have been "What is the Electoral College"?  Second question, Why was it made such an integral part of our constitution?

Just on this thread, several people have shown that they don't know the purpose of the Electoral College or the results if it was repealed.  If you were honest, you would admit that you didn't know the affect of a repeal.  That 10-12 states would run the country, that candidates wouldn't even have to bother visiting the others.  The other 38 or 40 states would vote one way or the other but have no effect on the outcome.

THAT is Democracy, better known as mob rule.

ALLOW me to PROVE my point of the ignorance of the majority of voters.

Video: Obama Supporters Don’t Know What Party Obama Is Affiliated With

  The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

How can Americans even begin to understand Obamacare or the government shut down?

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 4, 2013

In his latest ‘man on the street’ video, Mark Dice talks to Obama supporters in San Diego who struggle to work out which political party Obama is actually affiliated with.



The majority of the people Dice talked to didn’t know which party Obama was associated with and some even thought he was in fact a Republican.

One man thought Obama was associated with the “best ideas” party.

“The average American is a zombie and doesn’t even know what political party he stands for,” Dice tells one man who asserted that Obama was a Republican. “I would agree,” the man responds.

“What political party is Barack Obama affiliated with?” Dice asks another man, who responds, “It’s one of those.”

In response to the same question, another woman responds, “I have nothing good to say, I’m sorry.”

The clip would be hilarious if it wasn’t a tragic reflection of how dumbed down and ignorant of basic facts Americans have become in the modern era. Given that a substantial percentage of them don’t even know that Obama is a Democrat, how could they possibly hope to understand things like Obamacare or the government shut down?

Read more:  http://www.infowars.com/video-obama-supporters-dont-know-what-party-obama-is-affiliated-with/

Markle wrote:

Our country is a representative republic, NOT a Democracy better known as mob rule.

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

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

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

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College 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.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

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.

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. 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. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

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).

Markle wrote:The first question should have been "What is the Electoral College"?  Second question, Why was it made such an integral part of our constitution?

Just on this thread, several people have shown that they don't know the purpose of the Electoral College or the results if it was repealed.  If you were honest, you would admit that you didn't know the affect of a repeal.  That 10-12 states would run the country, that candidates wouldn't even have to bother visiting the others.  The other 38 or 40 states would vote one way or the other but have no effect on the outcome.

NOW 10 states determine the presidency.

NOW candidates don't even have to bother visiting the others.

With National Popular Vote EVERY vote in EVERY state would effect the outcome.

Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

National Popular Vote does not repeal or abolish the Electoral College. A majority of Electoral College votes would continue to elect the President. Nothing in the Constitution would be changed.

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 and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 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. 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. That’s over 85 million voters, 200 million Americans. 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 their voters relevant in every presidential election.

With National Popular Vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Ohio or Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

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

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

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

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College 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.

No response to my post, Markle?

boards of FL wrote:No response to my post, Markle?

I hope you didn't spend any time coming up that number soup. It means nothing.

A dozen states would determing the outcome and the rest would be slaves to their will. Progressives would love it because most of the big cities, with most of the Progressives would determine the Presidency each year.

FORTUNATELY, for our country, nothing like that could be ratified. All the smaller states know they would get screwed and not even kissed.

Markle wrote:

A dozen states would determing the outcome and the rest would be slaves to their will.  

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.

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.

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.”

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

Markle wrote:most of the big cities, with most of the Progressives would determine the Presidency each year.

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

16% of Americans live in rural areas.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

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

Markle wrote:
nothing like that could be ratified.  All the smaller states know they would get screwed and not even kissed.

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

Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.

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

In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (, NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

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

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

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

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Overall, more than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 rural, small, medium, and large states with 243 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 10 rural, small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

And one more time . . .

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!

Markle wrote:A dozen states would determing the outcome and the rest would be slaves to their will.

How? You keep repeating the same thing over and over again without qualifying it. Can you explain why it is that you believe it the case that if we were to make everyone's vote equal and eliminated the bulk awarding of an entire state's votes to one candidate, how on earth would that serve to give only a handful of states supreme power?

Sal wrote:I don't disagree with anything you've posted, but a point of etiquette.

You are obviously cutting and pasting much of the material you're posting (or you're the fasted typist in history).

You should post a link from where you're gathering this info so we can check out your source.

Thanks.

Supporters of National Popular Vote have been debunking 131 often repeated myths about the plan for over 7 years. We each have individual responses developed with and from information available at NationalPopularVote.com