Hillary Clinton: Time to abolish the Electoral College

You really need to get out and travel the 50 states if you don't get it and think it's ridiculous

 

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this 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. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
.
It 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 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

 

<Mod Edit- Rule 2>...we are a nation of 50 states that is United what fly's in New York city doesn't fly in Spruce pine North Carolina.

Once again states don't have to follow winner take all and EC voters can legally change their votes..

 

A survey of New York voters in 2008 showed 79% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
A survey of North Carolina voters in 2008 showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

States, throughout the country, are replacing state winner-take-all laws, 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. That is the point.

Only when states with 270 electoral votes enact the bill, will all voters be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live. That is the point.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 24,067 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

In Arizona, HB2302 went into effect in August 2017, Presidential electors must cast their electoral college vote for the presidential candidate and vice president candidate who jointly received the highest number of votes in the state. If the presidential elector refuses to cast that vote, they will no longer be eligible to hold their position as a presidential elector.

If any candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United States

 

If this process should be enacted, then there is no need for those Electors as the Presidency would be won by popular vote. Thereby changing the Constitution and once that happens, it becomes just a piece of paper. Worthless.
It's already been said there are more registered Democratic voters than Republican, so there really wouldn't be a choice or difference in policies. Just a changing of the guard, so to speak.
Now where's the 'Freedom' in that? And what would be the point of voting

 

Never happen - it's just legislative grandstanding at the state level - and I continue to LOVE how elitist Federalist Hamilton was thwarted by the states.

 

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Sorry, this is the same as certifying the vote in other states.

 

False premise.

 

Nothing would be changed in the Constitution.

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.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace 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 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.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

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

Now, if any candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would not elect that candidate.

 

Still sounds like splitting hairs. Since the most populated areas would still determine that states winner, yes? Just for example, New York has 29 votes and say 20 vote Democrat & 9 Republican. Even without the winner take all as it is now, Democrats would still have the advantage overall.......once again as mentioned earlier there are a greater number of registered Democrat voters. So the Republicans would always be outnumbered.
As with the electoral map in the past election, the majority of votes are in the largest cities and they are primarily Democrat while less populated outlying areas are primarily Republican.
What about the states with only 1 or 2 electoral votes? Those with only 1 vote, but still have a mixed population. Or those with 2 votes, but have 1 and a half Republicans and only half Democrats.

Trying to change the system because your candidate lost may sound like a fair & balanced idea for everyone, but I'm not so sure it really is.

 

No one actually supports this idea as none of the states you mention have made any move to change their laws, which they have all the power in the world to do independently of this "bill".

 

Of COURSE I've shown the widespread and strong support in states.

Any changes by states independently made without the guarantee of the candidate with the most national popular votes winning, would not meet the goal of the National Popular Vote bill, that does guarantee the candidate with the most national popular votes winning. States with 270 electoral votes NEED to enact the National Popular Vote bill to guarantee the candidate with the most national popular votes wins, and every voter everywhere is equal.

 

And yet not a single state has made the change you talk about when each of them could do so, tomorrow.
So much for your claims of support.

 

Hehe, we'd have had a President Gore AND a President Hillary if it were not for that pesky Electoral College thing.

 

And if they are white they get one extra vote.

 

That will work..............

 

And one extra point if you're an Atlanta Falcons fan, of course.

 

Trump has the same opinion.

 

So Hollywood-Left California can pick a fringe regional candidate against the wishes and better judgement of the rest of the Nation?

No Thanks!

Hillary Country Hollywood:

“Hollywood has a watchdog press, but it’s facing the wrong direction, protecting the powerful from the comparatively powerless. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that the New York Times and The New Yorker reported most of the allegations against Weinstein; the specialty publications have a much more symbiotic relationship with the industry’s movers and shakers. They can’t adequately cover the industry without access, and their access dries up if they cross the wrong power player.”

 

Why do yo not understand the irrelevance of this?

 

So what? He has has the same opinion - so what? It's not up to him. He doesn't get to decide.

 

Nebraska and Maine don't have winner take all. Whomever wins a congressional district gets that district's electoral vote. Whomever wins the state gets that state's 2 electoral votes for their two senators. That in my opinion would be a fairer way to award electoral votes than a winner take all. Even so, one could say if a candidate carries a congressional district by a very slim amount, it would be the same as carrying a state by a slim margin. The vote would be for the candidate that won, but abet using Florida as an example, instead of 29 electoral votes going to the state winner, only one would go to each congressional district winner.

Having said the above, I would prefer a hybrid system. Where if a candidate receives 50% plus one vote, he would receive that states entire electoral votes. That candidate had a majority of all votes cast. If the winner fell below 50%, go to the congressional district method along with awarding the winner with the two senatorial electoral votes for winning the state.

Last year there would have been 13 states that would have gone the congressional district route. Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin would have been states going the congressional district route. 7 states Clinton carried to 6 states trump carried.

 

If the Electoral College is eliminated, than the most populous states will dominate the elections. The top three most populace states are: California, Texas, and Florida. The runners-up are: New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington (state), Arizona, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Indianan, etc. The top three of the secondary are: New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The plan may not turn out as Hitlery plans unless the top three contenders might become inundated with peoples from Central and South America as well as other places which have “excess” population(s). I am not posting this for the purposes of the riff-raff, I post this for the purpose of demographical studies.

 

Hillary "won" 48.2% of the popular vote.
Given our current system, where a majority vote is necessary to win the election, why do you think this would make her the winner?

 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL proposal.