Abolish the electorial college?

That's a pretty fantastic prediction. For one I seriously doubt we are going to see an amendment to abolish the EC anytime soon, so this is all fantasy of course. Second, according to polling, currently there is greater support for a amendment that would abolish the EC. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/politics/popular-vote-poll/index.html. These polls tend to vary but seem to hover around 50/50 depending on the wording of the question. Interestingly the Republican party support for the EC greatly increased following the 2016 presidential election. https://news.gallup.com/poll/198917/americans-support-electoral-college-rises-sharply.aspx. I suppose that's somewhat predictable given the situation. All that said, assuming there was enough consensus to amend the constitution, I would think that 75%+ of the US would need to support the amendment, therefore your prediction seems unlikely in my opinion.

Here is what I think would actually happen if we abolished the EC. I don't think Dems would win every election, I think it would still tend to swing back and forth between the two parties as it has for the history of the US. I think the EC benefits candidates that are willing to appeal to their base. If the popular vote were the deciding factor I believe Presidential candidates could actively appeal to the more moderate, bulk of the US. They wouldn't need to just try to win a few of the dozen or so swing states. They could actively appeal to constituents who are essentially unrepresented in the EC; Republicans in CA, Democrats in TX, etc. I believe this would result in less partisanship, less gridlock, and a return to a more healthy moderate lean in our presidential candidates.

 

I would much prefer that each state go to the Maine model of distributing electors. Basically, the winner in each Congressional district gets an electoral vote, and the overall winner gets the two extra. This leaves states having some importance as individual units, but also distributes the electoral votes by geographic district.

 

Talk to your state legislature.

 

That would be preferable to the current situation.

 

Looking at this thread makes me realize that there are sock puppets on both sides

When you see extreme left wing posts...breath deep and you'll smell the socks.

 

Because that's how our system works. Are you aware that your State Legislature is not obligated to even give you a vote when it comes to Electors/POTUS? While all 50 States use a vote of their residents to do so, there is no Constitutional or legal impediment to them choosing another method. We do not have any nationwide elections.

 

Yes, abolish it. Clearly it not only does not work as intended, it works the opposite way of what was intended.

 

What a goofy response...he knows that is how the system works, and he is questioning the system. Lame copout.

 

Completely untrue.

It was created to give states with lesser populations a voice. They never would have joined the union without it and the outcry if they lost it would be immense...and rightfully so

 

No, it was formed primarily to protect slaveowners, and secondarily to keep a person like Trump from becoming president.

And we no longer have slaves, and twice in the last 18 years utterly incompetent, unfit people have become president BECAUSE of it, not in spite of it.

It needs to go.

 

I repeat

 

You regurgitate

 

Prove mob rule is better than anything else. Got it!

 

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.

 

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters have supported a national popular vote.

Nebraska in 2008 was the first time any state in the past century gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state.

2016 is the first time an 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.

 

They aren’t under represented. Each have two senators, as every state does. Then members of the bourse related to their population. Wyoming is so small they get the lowest number possible. Should Wyoming not have anyone in the House? How is that fair?

The EC also requires the presidential candidates to campaign in states they otherwise wouldn’t. If they popular vote is all that mattered they campaign in NY and Cali, and not outreach across the nation and appeal to other voters. Our founders understood the office shouldn’t just be a popularity contest

 

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.

 

California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.

 

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.

 

t states are free to break up there vote, that’s up to the people of the state. I have no problem with that. States are also free no to bind their electors to the vote. I’m free with that. States are free to change the Constituon...but now they have to follow the current law

 

So who would be promoting this attack on the EC?

Russian bots

Yes...it's a shame that the EC was used to elect Trump but the "fix" is to VOTE.

Get off your asses and VOTE

 

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 National Popular Vote 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 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, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 12 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 172 electoral votes – 64% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

 

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

“Swing States A Special Vulnerability In Achieving Election Security, DHS Says” – 3/21/18
"The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states," former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
The current secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments

In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win.

Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states in one region determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, the president’s narrow victory was due to 5 counties in 2 states.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1, 2, or 3 states would have elected a 2nd-place candidate in 6 of the 18 presidential elections

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 smaller states.

 

With new state legislators, the National Popular Vote bill can be enacted by states with the 98 more electoral votes needed.

The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

It simply requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

The bill has been enacted by Connecticut (7), the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 12 jurisdictions have 172 electoral votes – 64% 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.

 

I repeat