The Electoral College - yet again

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).

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

In the 2008 campaign, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).

In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

38+ states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence.

Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

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. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. 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.

 

The bill is NOT a national bill. It is being passed by states, replacing their current state laws, using their exclusive and plenary constitutional power to again change how to award their electors.

Congress is not involved.

There is NO change to the Constitution or our way of government.

 

With the bill in effect, the electors of STATES would continue to elect the President and VP.

The current presidential election system makes state recounts more likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000 or 2016, no recount would have been an issue.

No statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 58 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

 

I don't know what you are having trouble grasping here. There has NEVER been a national popular vote for President and VP or for anything. We NEVER vote as one voice on ANYTHING. There is no accounting of a national popular vote just a tally of 51 totally separate elections that were held. But certainly Florida 2000 was a prime example of WHY the system we have works. Had Florida been unable to gets it's slate of electors certified to the House on time the Electoral College would have met and elected the new Preisdent without them. Had it been on big vote such disputes and judges could put the hold thing in jeopardy.

 

OH you mean those billS, I thought you meant some new one being introduced. And how many have passed and been approved by the people of the state now, haven't heard anything about it in a while.

 

If the state had been unable to certify its election results, the state legislature could NOT have selected their slate of electors.

Existing federal law requires that presidential electors be appointed on a single designated day in every four-year period, namely the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

An attempt by a governor and legislature to change the “rules of the game” between Election Day in November and the mid-December meeting of the Electoral College would violate the Impairments Clause and be invalid because it would violate existing federal law.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) grants Congress the power to choose the time for appointing presidential electors:

“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

Existing federal law (section 1 of title 3 of United States Code) specifies that presidential electors may only be appointed on one specific day in every four-year period, namely the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Under the Constitution and existing federal laws, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the uniform nationwide “safe harbor” date -- 6 days before the uniform nationwide day when the Electoral College meets in mid-December.

Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

If a state cannot certify its results in time, no results for that state would be included when Congress meets in January.


The legislature cannot appoint presidential electors after Election Day

 

Approval by the people of the state is NOT needed.

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.

That is the basis for the National Popular Vote bill.

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, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

The bill has been enacted by 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 11 jurisdictions have 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

CT Governor Malloy is poised to sign the bill, making 12 jurisdictions with 172 electoral votes - 64%

 

It is You who is not grasping.
The bill would be a CHANGE to how states award their electors. That's the point.
Since 50 states have held statewide presidential elections, there has been a "national popular vote" total. The simple total of the certified votes among them all.

Florida is a prime example of an artificial crisis.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
The "national popular vote" winner was clear, without any recount in Florida.

The U.S. Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the U.S. (mid-December). This sets a final deadline for vote counts from all states. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal "safe harbor" statute to mean that the deadline for the state to finalize their vote count is 6 days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

This schedule guarantees "finality" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December. This existing constitutional schedule would govern the National Popular Vote compact in exactly the same way that it governs elections in the current system.

 

A person could win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote, this is not a good system when some people’s votes are worth substantially more than the votes of others.

 

Agreed, it does basically make your vote worth far more if you live in a smaller state since no matter how small your state is you get at least two electors, even if the state only happened to have 200,000 people in total. Your one vote could be worth that of 5 people in a larger state. On the opposite end of the spectrum your vote is completely meaningless if you are not in a swing state, because of this ludicrous thing called all or nothing electors.

I can get behind the first, because states should not be disenfranchised, but the second part, no. There are currently two states leading the way in this (which do not have a winner take all electorate), instead the electors are weighed through congressional district voting, which I support.

 

No to national popular vote!​

And wouldn't that really have to be an amendment and not a bill
because of the presence of the Electoral College in the Constitution?


Moi

r > g

​

 

Moi thinks elections should be judged by land area. Also Moi thinks that the votes of people in big states shouldn't mean as much as Moi's.

 

Do you also have a problem with the senate?

 

Please do not paraphrase me or represent my attitudes
since you can be so misrepresenting if not plainly wrong.



Moi sez -
As the founding father's intended.
A balance of geography and population representation.
Not one or the other.
Although I am amused by a State having one Congressional district and 2 Senators.
End, Moi sez

Okay?

BTW what about the 3/5ths Rule?

Moi

​

 

I was just having a little fun.

To be serious Republicans support the electoral college because they want to reduce the representation of the majority and give more of it to the minority because they are the minority. Most people live in cities now and it makes no sense for them to have less individual electoral influence than some dude in the country. The reason city people have more political influence is because most of the country and the jobs are in the cities. If you really wanted to give the minority an equal voice a better system is to just have the required votes for a legislation be 60% for everything so the majority party needs the approval of many from the minority.

 

Without the Electoral.College, the GOP would (virtually) never have a chance to win the Presidency.

 

They would probably move more to the middle and things will become 50/50 again. The GOP would have won 2016 by popular vote in someone more popular than Trump ran. Other GOP candidates pulled ahead of Hillary in the polls. George W. Bush even though he lost to Al Gore in the popular vote was ahead during most of the election.

 

Yes. I'd replace our current system with proportional representation system. When other countries saw the system we created and wanted to emulate us they made some improvements that makes the legislative better represent the will of the majority and also better represent third-party people with fringe beliefs as well. Now virtually every developed nation has proportional representation.

 

Don't confuse your bill with reality and history. As I said we have never had a national election or a popular vote in this country. Even your bill Doss not create one it manipulates to try and create one.

Yes and artificial chad's crisis so that Gore's people could get their hands on ballots.

The votes in the other states had nothing to do with it.

Get enough complaints filed, get a few judges......as we saw in Florida. Each state still would have to certify its vote.

Yes and each state would have to certify its popular vote tally. What's your point?

 

What does that have to do with what I said about the results of the 2016 vote?

 

Then why have a Senate and a House?

 

They are worth the same. We have 50 states not one thus the nation is called "The United States of America." California had its election and cast its peoples will into the electorate the same as every other state. I shouldnt have to explain this on a political forum. The outcome was the majority of the states picked Trump in what is historically recorded as a landslide upset victory.

 

No, the majority of people voted against Trump. The electoral college resulted in a president that a majority of voters did not want being elected.

 

There really isn't any need. They had two chambers as a compromise between big states and little states. Back then states were like countries and the US was more like a confederacy like the EU. Small states didn't want the big states to control everything and big states didn't want a bunch of small states to use their numbers to control everything. So they made the Senate for the small states and the House for big states as a compromise. The federal government didn't have much power back then and mostly dealt with foreign policy stuff anyway kind of like the EU. But today now the Federal government has most of the power and people identify more with the US than they do to their state. States are now more like glorified provinces and people want their voice to be heard in national matters not the small states.

 

The Legislature was setup to have one body, the House, represent the People and the other body, the Senate, represent the Senate. Why don't we just go back to that? But if we do as you say there certainly is no reason to have to the two bodies.

Of course all of that would take an amendment to the constitution which is not going to happen any time soon.