L:et's make this simple. Only about 45% of those ELIGIBLE vote bother to register. Of those who do, only about 50% percent of those bother to go to the polls for general elections. So, in effect, Obama was elected by about 26% of Americans who could've and should've voted. This is true for almost ALL elections in this country. Compare this to our neighbor to the south where everyone eligible to vote is registered and about 95% of those go to the polls.
When the Florida vote was contested in 2000 it only affected Florida. Had it not been settled the Florida state legilature would have selected the electors for the state of Florida. And even if they had not been able to settle the matter the rest of the states would have proceeded to send their electors votes to the Senate and we would have had a President without Florida because of their own mess because each state holds it's own election and makes it's own decision. Were that not the case and there was just one big election then what? Could a federal district judge hold up the entire election over a contested vote in just one district?
When the Florida vote was contested in 2000 it affected all of us in the U.S., and the world. 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. The Florida state legislature would NOT have selected the electors for the state of Florida. Title 3, chapter 1, section 5 of the United States Code creates a “safe harbor” date six days before the scheduled meeting of the Electoral College for reaching a “final determination of any controversy” concerning the November voting for presidential electors. Title 3, chapter 1, section 5 of the United States Code states: “If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.” The U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore effectively treated the “safe harbor” date as a deadline for a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election results. The argument was advanced that if a recount were ordered by a court, if the court-ordered recount were to vacate the initial count, and if the court-ordered recount were not completed by the “safe harbor” date, then there would have been a “failure to make a choice” in Florida. Florida could then have been left with no presidential electors by the “safe harbor” day because of its “failure to make a choice.” If Florida had failed to cast its 25 electoral votes in the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected President because he would have had a majority of the electors appointed. 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. The electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress. In order to be elected, a presidential candidate must win the votes of an absolute majority of the presidential electors who have been “appointed” - - - Updated - - - Elections carry the risk of conflicts over recounts. The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue. The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting. 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 so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount. 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.
No it only affected the Florida election, it had no bearing on any other state. Had the results not been certified or remained in danger of not being certified then either the state legislature would have chosen the electors as Florida law enabled or Florida would just have been out of luck with no electors, the Electoral College would have convened without them. A moot point, Florida's election had nothing to do with the other 49 elections. In a true national election, ie national popular vote, it would have. The election could not have been settled because of those miniscule number of votes in question. Had it not been settled before the date of final certification they would have and they were prepared to do so. And the Florida legislature could have and would have stepped in when there was a danger of the election not being settled by that safe harbor date and appointed the electors. The state legislature would have made the selection and had even entered a bill to do so. http://lubbockonline.com/stories/120900/nat_120900078.shtml A TRUE national election could not accommodate that as it would no longer be state elections. Remember your bill is not a TRUE national election. DUH
It is not necessary to state the obvious. It makes it neither more or less nor does popular election. But the current system isolates it so the the proper and timely selection of the President is not endangered. And currently if not settled the the state legislature protects the electorial votes of that state. If it were a true national popular vote then every contest would have to be settled else what, Congress selects the President? Sure it could still affect a state and that states election results would STILL have to be certified.
The Florida state legislature would NOT have selected the electors for the state of Florida. Had it not been settled before the date of final certification they would NOT have selected the electors Existing federal law specifies that each states own final determination of its presidential election returns is conclusive (if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws in existence prior to Election Day). Prior to Election Day 2000, Florida had a state winner-take-all law for awarding their electoral votes. Title 3, chapter 1, section 5 of the United States Code creates a safe harbor date six days before the scheduled meeting of the Electoral College for reaching a final determination of any controversy concerning the November voting for presidential electors. The U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore effectively treated the safe harbor date as a deadline for a states final determination of its presidential election results. And the Florida legislature could have and would have stepped in when there was a danger of the election not being settled by that safe harbor date and appointed the electors. Florida could then have been left with no presidential electors by the safe harbor day because of its failure to make a choice. The state legislature would NOT have made the selection even though they entered a bill to do so. http://lubbockonline.com/stories/120...20900078.shtml
Here's a paper that analyzes the effect of making electoral votes match results in Congressional districts, comparing these results to the current electoral college and to a direct popular vote. The authors conclude that using Congressional districts would be substantially less fair than the alternatives. See http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/ecollege.pdf They look particularly at California, comparing it to Nebraska and Maine, the only states now allocating electoral votes by district.
Yes they would have and were already poised to do so. Existing federal law specifies that each states own final determination of its presidential election returns is conclusive (if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws in existence prior to Election Day). Prior to Election Day 2000, Florida had a state winner-take-all law for awarding their electoral votes. (CNN) A committee of Floridas Republican-dominated legislature recommended November 30 that the legislators hold a special session to name the states Electoral College contingent. Republican lawmakers in the state say the U.S. Constitution empowers them to appoint their own slate of electors. They want to begin the process as early as Tuesday because the legal motions surrounding the election could continue past the December 12 deadline for naming electors. Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Joe Lieberman said November 30 that the legislatures action threatened to put the United States in a "constitutional crisis." http://www.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/2000/11/30/boettcher/ December 4, 2000 The Honorable John McKay President of the Senate The Honorable Tom Feeney Speaker of the House of Representatives Dear President McKay and Speaker Feeney: Your Select Joint Committee on the Manner of the Appointment of Presidential Electors having met, and after full and free conference, do recommend to their respective houses as follows: 1. The Florida Legislature convene in Special Session for the purpose of addressing the manner of appointment of presidential electors for the State of Florida; and, that 2. The Florida Legislature carefully consider the broad authority granted to it under Section I of Article III of the United States Constitution to establish the manner of appointment of the electors for the State of Florida; and, that 3. The Florida Legislature take appropriate action to ensure that Florida's 25 electoral votes for President and Vice President in the 2000 Presidential Election are counted. http://election2000.stanford.edu/fla.legis.electors.pdf
Well, there are more effective ways to prevent that, like instant runoff voting or single transferable votes. Our system of voting, in and of itself, is the problem, because it leaves no room for more than 2 parties.
Under the electoral vote, political minorities in a given state (like Republicans in NY or Democrats in Texas) are basically powerless in electing the President. This contributes to low voter turnout in states that heavily lean one way or the other. At the very least, every state should split electoral votes by popular vote percentage. Otherwise, it's kind of a joke in terms of accuracy in representation. Proportional representation is much better in a lot of other democracies -- particularly in parliamentary systems. Heads of state are often better off being indirectly elected (like being the party leader with the most legislative seats).
Further from the SCOTUS ruling "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated” (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.)."
A committee of Floridas Republican-dominated legislature recommended November 30 that the legislators hold a special session to name the states Electoral College contingent. A law enacted after Election Day would not be "in accordance with laws in existence prior to Election Day." Existing federal law specifies that each states own final determination of its presidential election returns is conclusive (if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws in existence prior to Election Day).
By laws enacted BEFORE ELECTION DAY, if it so chooses, a state can select the electors itself, The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors, by laws enacted BEFORE ELECTION DAY.
No they can do it after,they have plenary power under the constitution if the election is not certified they can take measures to protect the electors of their state. SCOTUS agreed with that in their ruling.
Their plenary power was in accordance with the law before election day. "The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated” They cannot change the rules of the election after the election, as Gore was trying to get the courts to do, but they can choose to appoint the electors in a different manner any time they so choose even after the votes have been cast.
Yet Daniel Ortega won in 2006, in Nicaragua, with just 37.99 percent of the popular vote. In pure theory, that is true enough. In reality, however, the winner of the popular vote in the US is usually the winner of the electoral vote also. The year 2000 was an exception to this rule--just ask Al Gore--prior to which, one must go back to the nineteenth century to find separate winners of the popular vote and the electoral vote. And a candidate's winning the presidency with just 23 percent ot the popular vote, although theoretically possible, I suppose, is simply not going to happen. (Even in 2000--which was an anomaly--the loser of the popular vote, George W. Bush, received 47.87 percent of that total; which is within a whisker of the 48.38 percent received by Al Gore.)
The fact is nobody knows what a popular vote national election would look like. Because US presidential campaigns aren't national campaigns, whether I stay in bed on election day in November 2016, or vote doesn't mean a thing, the electoral votes of my state are going to the Democratic nominee...along with the electoral votes of New York and California, and Illinois. The candidate may make one or two stops in Massachusetts, to attend fund raisers, and he may appear at a rally nearby. What TV ads we see aren't aimed at us, they are aimed north of the border, looking for New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes. There won't be much in the way of advertising in Los Angeles, there won't be serious voter programs there, because the Democrat can't lose California and the Republican can't win, so they'll focus on the battleground states and we'll all be forced to use ethanol in our gasoline, because that's an issue in Iowa. If you had a national campaign, it would actual favor the GOP, because in a national campaign TV advertising is king, and the GOP can raise money, even if it's only from a small number of people. (more than half of Bush's campaign funds came from 700 people..) And a campaign where every vote in every state counts, would look different than a campaign focused on 11 battleground states. And even though the GOP candidate knew he was going to lose California and New York, if he actually campaigned there he might pick up quite a few votes. And even though the Democrat knew he was going to win California and New York, he'd still need to go there to energize the vote. I think it would be very interesting.
Rather oddly, this appears to assume that the country in question should be perfectly happy to allow for the winner to be decided by a mere plurality of the popular vote; whereas it would certainly not be impossible to require a runoff between the two top vote-getters, if no one should receive a majority of the vote.
popular vote, winner takes all per state, each state gets one vote course I guess this would give small states a advantage, maybe one that would make a state want to divide into 2 or 3 states . .
