The Electoral College - yet again

States can appoint their electors in any manner they choose. And the president is elected by the states, not by a national public election.

 

States with 3 electoral votes range in population of less than 600,000 to almost a million.

The Founders protected the interests of the smaller states by creating the Senate, which gave each state — regardless of size or population — two senators.

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 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.

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 4 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.

 

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. .
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"
“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

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.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

In the 2016 general election campaign

Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).


Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

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 [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

 

A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

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

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

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

 

And had the state been unable to certify it's election results because the court was staying it the state legislature would have selected their slate of electors. Recall the Democrats were filling suit against that determination the Secretary of State had made.



CNN Today
Election 2000: 400,000-Plus Ballots on the Road to Tallahassee; Florida Legislature Closer to Appointing Electors
Aired November 30, 2000 - 1:21 p.m. ET
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0011/30/tod.01.html

 

Let's bring up another reason why the Electoral college works as it should. We just mentioned Florida. Had Florida not been settled, had the courts drug in on and on up until the date the Electoral votes were to be sent to the House and Florida could not do so what would have happened? We would have had a President and VP elected by the Electoral College and sworn a few weeks later. Florida would have just been left out. But had we a national popular vote and one precinct had voting irregularities and a huge court case ensued the entire election could be put in jeopardy for the entire country.

Once again a fundimental principle of our country, the STATES elect the President and Vice-President of the United STATES, not the People.

 

This election showed exactly why we need the EC. Look at how much attention Hillary paid to anywhere and anyone who wasn't going to vote for her. When a candidate openly admits they don't give a **** about you unless you're Democrat and live in a city, then you're just plain ****ed.

/case closed.

 

Few words; much said.

 

That's because we're sane and moral, so we reject false, crazy and immoral claims. We go by what's rational, you go by emotion.

Other than giving the rich a tax cut and exploding the deficit, he's failed at everything. I've never seen a president fail more completely to deliver on his promises.

Now, what did any of that have to do with the EC? We get it. You're jealous of the success and morality of cities and blue states compared to the failure and corruption of the heroin-soaked red states and rural areas.

The EC is a legacy of slavery, deliberately designed to disenfranchise a large segment of the population. That's why it should go.

 

State Governors use to appoint Senators too until a Constitutional Amendment
made direct election of Senators the law for all States.

 

The State appointed electors to "decide".
Remember, boys and girls, the Founding Fathers did not trust the unwashed masses.
Maybe except for Jefferson and his followers.

Another safe guard against voting wrong was Senators were appointed by State governors.
It took an amendment to the Constitution to require direct popular election of Senators.

 

Didn't seem to bother anyone (that is, the left) in 1992 and 1996.
Nor would it have bothered anyone (that is, the left) in 2000 and 2016.

 

Yes, I understand that now, after some reading.

 

Makes us kinda unique doesn't it......

And why the so-called popular vote might make for interesting trivia question it has no bearing on a national vote or a national choice and certainly not to the legitimacy of the President and VP.

 

Ahhh well this one doesn't agree with you. You have no idea what the majority of the people wanted. We did not vote as a single people. We voted as 50 separate states and DC. Tallying up the results of those 51 unique votes is NOT reflective of what a national popular vote would have produced and cannot be extrapolated into a single vote.

 

The state legislators picked them and we should go back to that by repealing the 17th amendment.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,)(The preceding words in parentheses superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

 

Unfortunately it does not sink in so well with many.

 

You have no constitutional franchisement to vote for the President and VP. You do so at the pleasure of your state legislature. And that's not going to change.

 

When the bill is in effect, the candidates and voters would be well aware that the total of the votes of all 50 states and DC would determine the Electoral College majority. That's the point.

 

When the bill is in effect, the national popular vote total will determine the winner of the Electoral College.
That's the point. It is a change.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Most Americans DO believe a legitimate President and VP should win the most popular votes in the country.

 

When the bill is in effect, the president will continue to be elected by the 270+ electors of the states.

 

The National Popular Vote bill ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. In 1992 and 1996, the candidate with the most national popular votes WON the Presidency.

In 2000 and 2016 the candidate with the most national popular votes did NOT win the Presidency.

With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.

Since 1828, one in six states have cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state

Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (194, Kennedy (1960), Nixon (196, Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump.

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) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. It has occurred in 5 of the nation's 58 (9%) presidential elections. 2 of the 3 most recent Presidents entered office without having won the national popular vote.

 

The founders purposely constituted the general government such that the president was not elected via a plebiscite but was elected by the states.

 

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

 

A national bill, a bill passed by the Congress cannot change that. Congress cannot dictate how any state conducts its selection of electors. You would need an amendment to the Constitution not some run around attempt. Why would you even consider making such a fundamental change to our way of government by doing an end run around the Constitution?