The Electoral College achieved what the Framers feared most

So racism is your retort?

 

38 of the several sovereign states can change the treaty. They can change the way the president is selected. Which 38 states do you think would choose to reduce their political influence?

 

It's much better if we have a electoral system representing effectively each bloc of the society, but we already have the electoral college, democrats also won and republicans also won, so if you cannot change and it doesn't impede whatsoever any party from winning then so be it.

 

Go tell all the low population states that refused to join the Union without protection from the tyranny of the bigger states. The EC was one of their contractual conditions that the rest agreed to.

 

Why on the state level? Couldn't we apply the same logic to towns vs. cities within a state as well?

My mistake, I meant to say antecedent. I get those mixed up occasionally. To be honest, why did I think precedent? I must be thinking of something else.

 

For 5 more years .

 

Whats wrong , did someone lose an election ?

 

The electoral college isn’t going anywhere. Complaining about it is like complaining about the weather.

 

Leftists cannot win so they want to change the rules. Instead of trying to put forth policies for ALL AMERICANS they want to cater to the mob.

 

And is on the road to becoming a third world country.

 

If public schools would teach American history, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the reason for the Electoral College we wouldn't be having this debate. Everyone would be thankful for the EC.

 

So you are saying we will have the Electoral College for more than the 11.4 years humankind has left?
At the 9+ year mark when LA and NY are totally under seawater, will that affect the electoral count in those states?

 

None of it will matter by 2030. Mankind is doomed. Eliminating cow farts and planes won’t be enough.

 

No. The dead have been known to vote.

 

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

 

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“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 would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing 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 later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee 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 retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

 

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill


In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”.

On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote

In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill

 

Once enough states take up the NPV it will end up in SCOTUS for obvious reasons. First, it is an end run around the Constitution. Second, states will not be basing their votes on their State but on other States, nullifying their own states voters.

BTW; Language in the NPV allows them to not claim it if they don't agree with the winner.

 

The NPVC will fail miserably in court.

 

With the National Popular Vote bill, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates 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 Pennsylvania 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.

We would not be doing away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.



The 8 smallest states (i.e., those with three electoral votes) together received only one of the nation’s 952 general-election campaign events in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections.

Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State 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 campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

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 5.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. 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.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later 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.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

 

What obvious reason? I noted:

Article II, Section 1
“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."

In presidential elections, current state statewide winner-take-all laws create the illusion that entire states voted 100% for the state’s winner, because the laws award 100% of each state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most votes in the state. However, for example, in Connecticut, the actual vote was 898,000 votes for Clinton; 673,000 for Trump, 49,000 for Johnson, and 23,000 for Stein.

The price that a state pays for its winner-take-all law is that no presidential candidate has anything to gain or lose by soliciting voters or catering to voter issues in 38 states in the November general election. The Democratic candidates take blue states for granted, The Republican candidates take red states for granted. Every voter in safe states—Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green—ends up without any meaningful influence or voice in the presidential election.

Some voters have voted for every presidential election since the early 1990s, but state winner-take-all laws for electoral college votes have made sure not a SINGLE vote in their life for president has mattered because they are in the minority party in their state. They could have never voted for President, and still had the same impact. None.

With National Popular Vote,

Every vote in the country would actually count equally toward selecting the winner. Candidates would have an incentive to campaign in all states instead of ignoring 38 "safe" states and "lost cause" states. Think it through. Republicans in California and New York could actually help elect a Republican President. Democrats in Colorado and Texas could actually help elect a Democratic President. Now their votes are meaningless because states award all their electoral voters to the statewide winner.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.

All votes would count equally towards the national vote

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire or Florida. The National Popular Vote bill would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.

The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates.

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

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).

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).

 

Non-educated whites are wacist.

 

Of COURSE Language in the NPV does NOT allow them to not claim it if they don't agree with the winner.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/bill-text

 

What obvious reason? An end run around the Constitution that gives the States individually to represent their State, not other States. The Constitution does not allow a simple majority vote which the NPV tries to do. Changes to the Constitution require an amendment.

 

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes among all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada (6), New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

The bill has been enacted by Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), New Jersey (14), Maryland (10), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Oregon (7), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 16 jurisdictions have 196 electoral votes – 73% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

It would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.