Abolish the electorial college?

You stand with Democrats, so how is having super delegates any different than the E.C.? E.C. delegates are chosen by the states they live in. Super delegates are chosen by the Democrat elites with the specific goal of having the candidate the DNC chooses and damn what the people want.

 

I guess you just forgot to mention a) 100% of those states are Democrat b) other than maybe Washington, they are the bluest blue states in the country c) Cali and NY would be among the prime beneficiaries of doing away with the EC.

Similar spin factors apply to other portions of your walls o text from the public union PR talking points list, too numerous to mention.

Good luck with the spin/spam/distortion campaign though!

Not happening.

 

Trump vote %
GA - 50% , MO - 56%, AZ - 48%, AR - 61%, DE - 42%, DC - 4%, ME- 45%, MI - 47%, NV - 46%, NC - 50%, OK - 65%, OR - 39%, CA - 31%, CO - 43%, CT - 41%, HI - 30%, IL - 38%, NJ - 41%, MD - 34%, MA - 33%, NM - 40%, NY - 37%, RI - 39%, VT - 30%, and WA - 37%

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

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.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The National Popular Vote system addresses the core threat of parochialism in presidential elections.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

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.

The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, and the Trump steel and aluminum tariffs now, from the free-trade party.

Electoral math drives protectionist trade policies to favor parochial interests in battleground states.
The root cause of the current trade war is the state-based winner take all system.
“Trump's Tariff Is a Gift to Swing States” – Bloomberg – 3/20/18
And conversely, Trump’s trade war, with China targeting red states, could hurt the very voters who put him in the White House.

As trade and other tensions increase with foreign countries, U.S. foes and trading partners can micro-target their efforts against us. They're certainly going to target major U.S. exports like soybeans and pork and investments, and many of those are in areas like the Farm Belt. The agriculture community is concerned about it. There are other possible easily identified targets as well.

European Union officials quickly crafted possible retaliatory tariffs against American goods, using strategies using their knowledge of the effects of state winner take all laws for awarding electoral votes.

The current state-based winner-take-all system allows foreign governments to weaponize protectionism against the battleground states and encourages presidents to start trade wars in order to win parochial voters in a handful of battleground states.

Facing fierce opposition by Democratic and Republican governors in all coastal states, after the Trump administration announced the opening of offshore oil drilling, only battleground state Florida has been exempted.

Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years has been skewed to battleground states

 

Keep spamming from the copypasta file instead of reasonably engaging and addressing points directly. It's transparent. Won't hide the fact that it is cherrypicked and comes straight from a public union PR department. NEA perhaps? SEIU?

Or should I just google "Why we need the electoral college," make a desktop file of the results and spam them here over and over?

 

One more time.
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.

I have no relationship to any public union PR department. You have a very active imagination when confronted with inconvenient facts.

 

One more time. The above is the logical equivalent of claiming "painting that Stop Sign white is not the same as removing it because it will still be there... just painted white." Specious and you well know it.

A law that guts the primary function and mandate of another law, yet leaves the prior law intact otherwise, is de facto revocation of the original law. If you want to advocate for nationwide popular vote election of the President, do so without the transparent subterfuge.

Moreover, if you want to change a fundamental aspect of U.S. law, E.C. or other, start advocating for the steps necessary to accomplish a Constitutional Amendment, not trying to end run around that process, ironically, via tyranny of the majority in the very statehouses the end run would benefit most, nor via an activist judiciary.

A little glimmer/shimmer in my crystal ball tells me you'll be firmly against pursuing the Constitutional Amendment process, or especially against more drastic measures such as a Constitutional Convention. There's a movement afoot to convene a Constitutional Convention, surely those who want to change the way the U.S. POTUS is elected would be in favor of that? Yes?

 

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

 

Actually, two states do award their electors proportionally--Maine and Nebraska. They give two electoral votes to the top vote getter across the state, and then one each to the vote winner in each congressional district. Maine has 4 electors. A candidate can get 1, 3 or 4 electoral votes from Maine.

Personally, I'm against the idea of the National Popular vote. That said, I think that the Maine system of allocating electors makes sense, and I wish more states would do that.

 

The Democrats have no intention of giving up any of the 55 votes in CA, 29 votes in NY, or 20 votes in IL.

 

Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes mathematically to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.

Maine (only since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (only since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century.

2016 is the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.

In Maine, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters have supported a national popular vote for President
In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill

Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, would require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Then they changed their minds and wanted to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier.

In Nebraska, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters have supported a national popular vote for President

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.

A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

And no Republican state has any intention of now choosing to give up any of their electoral votes.

 

I couldn't disagree more. We are the United STATES. This is why states choose the president. It's by design and working exactly as intended.

Get back to me when we are the United PEOPLE.

 

On this we agree!

In fact, the Constitution provides for straightforward ways for, in your words, states to "make the decision" that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College.

1. Constitutional Amendment or 2. Constitutional Convention.

So which method would you prefer? (or are you going to dodge the question... again?)

I prefer "2." Then the several states could get -lots- of things that are dividing the country straightened out, yes?

 

IMHO, the National Popular Vote bill is immoral. It causes a state's electors to not resemble the state. I agree it is constitutional, but it's simply wrong-headed. I think the Maine and Nebraska systems are the closest to the intents of the Founders.

 

The electoral college is set up via the constitution, making the popular vote irrelevant. We can't change that without a constitutional amendment. Hence, using the popular vote IS unconstitutional. The popular vote is a meaningless statistic.

 

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 38+ states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.

10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant now.

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."


Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. . The Founders had been dead for decades

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska choose not to have winner-take-all laws– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) do not have winner-take-all laws.

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

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

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.



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.

 

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.

There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

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.

In the nation’s first competitive presidential election in 1796, Jefferson lost the Presidency by three electoral votes. Jefferson lost, in part, because presidential electors were chosen by district in the heavily Jeffersonian states of Virginia and North Carolina.

● On January 12, 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote James Monroe (then a Virginia legislator):

“On the subject of an election by a general ticket [winner-take-all], or by districts, … all agree that an election by districts would be best, if it could be general; but while 10 states choose either by their legislatures or by a general ticket [winner-take-all], it is folly and worse than folly for the other 6 not to do it.”

● The Virginia legislature then passed a winner-take-all law in time for the 1800 election—thereby assuring Jefferson of all the state’s electoral votes.

● Meanwhile, the Federalist majority in the legislature of John Adam’s home state of Massachusetts—alarmed by rising support for Jefferson in the state—repealed the state’s district system—thereby assuring John Adams of all of the state’s electoral votes in 1800.

● This triggered a domino effect in which each state’s dominant political party adopted winner-take-all in order to maximize the party’s number of electoral votes. Ten states enacted winner-take-all by 1824 when Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton told the Senate:

“The general ticket system [winner-take-all], now existing in 10 States was … not [the offspring] of any disposition to give fair play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading men of those states, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the State.”

● By 1880, all states were using winner-take-all.

 

A book is not needed to prove your point. Please post the relevant wording in the constitution that says we elect the POTUS via the popular vote. Your essay is meaningless. I just need to see what the constitution says.

 

The U.S. Constitution says "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 normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

 

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

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. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting the National Popular Vote bill would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. 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 powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

The National Popular Vote 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 36 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), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).

 

The founders intended an electoral college, which is why they put it in Article 2, Section 1. We elect the POTUS and VPOTUS via the Electoral College. Working as designed.

There is nothing about popular vote in the constitution.

 

So just another form of dodge of the simple question, "Constitutional Amendment or Convention?" Not surprised at all.

You are conflating the ability of any -single- state to determine its methods of election with the illicit, unconstitutional action of the several states to do that regarding the whole country without amending the Constitution. Keep pipe dreaming though! Who knows, aliens could land and revoke the EC without Constitutional Amendment or Convention next week, about as likely as your way.

But fear not, there's a far greater chance the EC will be discussed during the new Constitutional Convention than the Constitution being subverted by your brand of activist hoodoo. Won't that be grand? I look forward to seeing the EC debated and updated... right along with term limits, debt ceilings, abolishing public unions nationwide, unwinding massive amounts of bureaucracy back to the states, and the undoing of vast amounts of illicit Executive and Judicial power grabbed wrongfully during the 20th Century and to date. Makes me shiver in anticipation. Bet you and yours are shivering at that prospect too (in a different way)! Brrrrrrr!

 

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

 

Your question is not based on facts.

The U.S. Constitution says "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 normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by changes in state law.

Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones),

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

 

We would CONTINUE to elect the POTUS and VPOTUS via the Electoral College!

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. 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 Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution
The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

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 current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes only became predominant by 1880 -- almost a century after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one,

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.