Nearly 11 years after the 2000 presidential election brought the idiosyncrasies of the United States’ Electoral College into full view, 62% of Americans say they would amend the U.S. Constitution to replace that system for electing presidents with a popular vote system. Barely a third, 35%, say they would keep the Electoral College.
Gallup’s initial measure of support for the Electoral College with this wording was conducted in the first few days after the 2000 presidential election in which the winner remained undeclared pending a recount in Florida. At that time, it was already clear that Democratic candidate Al Gore had won the national popular vote over Republican George W. Bush, but that the winner of the election would be the one who received Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes…
Republicans have grown somewhat more amenable to adopting a popular vote system over the past decade. Now, for the first time since 2000, the majority of Republicans favor it. Independents are not quite as supportive as Democrats of the popular vote system, but the majority of them have consistently favored it…
From 1967 through 1980, Gallup periodically asked Americans about replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote system using different question wording, and each time, the majority favored it. The issue was particularly relevant during this period because the popular vote in the 1968 and 1976 presidential elections was so closely divided…
And Congress’ response will be..?
I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of poll respondents have no idea what the electoral college does for them and the election process in the US.
My favorite article on the subject.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to over 2/3rds of the states and their voters. 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. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 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.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Since World War II, a shift of only a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.
But…key to those battleground states is that the candidates must consider how to get votes from a wider cross-section of the electorate. That’s a moderating factor that likely takes into account the priorities of the fly-overs.
The alternative is candidates pushing for max vote totals in easy areas, thereby ignoring the more moderate middle.
IMO the electoral college helps keep the whack-jobs out of office. If we could only figure out a way to do that for congress….
So you’re content that 2/3rds of states and their voters (over 85 million and including 9 of the original 13 states, 12 of the 13 smallest states) are ignored by candidates now, winning the 11 biggest states by a bare plurality, with only 26% of the national vote, could win the White House, and policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing?
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 18 battleground states.”
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009 said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
Someone once said: ‘The harm to democratic values would be worth it if one could point out some way that our system produces superior policy, or political consensus by mediating between two extremes to synthesize some middle ground that approximates the national interest. Sadly, I don’t think, in recent years that our system has produced that, or much of anything policywise that we can point to.”
“Nearly 11 years after the 2000 presidential election brought the idiosyncrasies of the United States’ Electoral College into full view, 62% of Americans say they would amend the U.S. Constitution to replace that system for electing presidents with a popular vote system. ”
How would popular vote make things better? The problem 11 years ago was because of the popular vote. We all know where the electoral votes go. If we went to popular vote only, just magnify the disaster in Florida by 100 for every election.
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 miniscule 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.
Just because the majority wants to do it does not make it the right thing to do.
Thank you!
Yup.. Al Gore would have been president and we would not be in the shithole we are now. A trillion dollars richer and 3,000 American boys would be home raising a family.
However, we do have the give the 37 yahoos yahoo’s in South Dakota a vote.
I bet a majority of those people think we’re a democracy too.
A Republic and a Democracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.
With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
That’s because the Electoral College is antiquated and needs to be abolished once and for all.
That’s right. And round wheels are so old hat, that there’s no need for them on our shiny new flying cars.
Rejection of things considered old should only be considered when something new has been carefully considered.
Not that I wouldn’t get rid of the electoral college too, but I have something far more radical, and sensible to propose.
Just knocking out the electoral college out of the loop would not do any good.
The entire electoral system needs to be reconsidered.
So math is now antiquated. Go read that article I linked to in the first post. Whoever created the electoral college was brilliant, and its elimination would be a disaster.
The fact that most Americans would scrap the electoral college without understanding why it is in place is evidence as to why it needs to remain in place.
Very good. Sophistry and a non sequitur simultaneously.
Ok then, Mob rules, your choice. Or rather, let the majority decide for you.
Ditto.
My standard boiler plated screed against election and for selection follows:
What we need to get rid of is gerrymandering. It has taken the moderates out of politics.
I agree. Gerrymandering is the retarded half brother of the electoral college. A good idea, maybe, when the pony express was cutting edge technology.
Needs a Constitutional Amendment. That needs a 2/3rds pass. We’re 2% shy of that.
It’s not done by popular vote either. 3 ways to amend the constitution but all must be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
OF COURSE it isn’t a pop vote. It’s a generic principle.
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 National Popular Vote, to guarantee the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the Presidency, would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws 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.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “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.”
I would never want a straight popular vote, States with small populations would become irrelevant and large states with large populations would have all the power. Now perhaps a hybrid of a popular vote on a state by state basis might be simpler, 51% popular vote to win the state and 51% of the states won (26) wins the election, with the straight popular vote as a tie breaker if needed.
I do understand your argument but I believe that you’re simply wrong.
States with small populations are already irrelevant.
The corporatocracy is running the show now anyway. State size itself is irrelevant.
With the current system, it could only take winning the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, 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.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers — including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
62% of Americans want mob rule.
What we need is a liberal King for several years to clean things up, do the right things.
* Get rid of the jury of peers system. Pick from pool of intelligent people, majority vote.
* Change the tax system – 8% Tax across the board. Corporations pay 10% for domestic presence and 30% for shipping jobs overseas
* Basic healthcare for al US citizens
* Lock down the borders with electric fence and killer drones
* Tax the church heavily and regulate it as a witchcraft or voodoo service
* Fire poor performing educators with a suitable process
Some decent ideas, but some crazy ones as well from Dallas this morning I see.
* Get rid of the jury of peers system. Pick from pool of intelligent people, majority vote.
And I guess this liberal king would avoid loading up the jury full of his political enemies? If this were to happen you wold have nazi Germany in a few decades. An unchecked government inevitably slides into a dictatorship.
* Change the tax system – 8% Tax across the board. Corporations pay 10% for domestic presence and 30% for shipping jobs overseas
You had me until you wanted to use the tax code to dictate behavior. Besides if the tax code was 10% for corps across the board, I don’t think you would have as many going over seas. After all with only 10% America would become one of the lowest corp taxes in the world, with a very highly trained and high production workforce.
* Basic healthcare for al US citizens
You are going to need a tax code allot more than 10% to pay for this. Not only that what about the doctors that don’t want to work for the government? What are you going to do to them? Forcing someone to give a service against their will to someone else uses part of that persons life, and is a form of slavery.
* Lock down the borders with electric fence and killer drones
Don’t really need killer drones or electric fence. All you need to do is make it a federal offence to knowingly hire an illegal, and ban any federal benefits for illegal’s. It may sound heartless but in time the problem will fix itself after the illegals start to get hungry because they can’t get a job, and head home where they can at least feed themselves.
* Tax the church heavily and regulate it as a witchcraft or voodoo service
So you want the government (or this liberal dictator, err I mean king)to decide which religions are allowed and which ones are not? Are churches really the biggest of our problems right now? Seriously, leave this one to the states like it is now, government should not be messing around with religion one way or another.
* Fire poor performing educators with a suitable process
Once again something that should be left to the states, ever since the feds got involved in education and the NEA rose to power education has been going down the crapper.
You must be Republican since everything seemed just wrong or can’t do. Think positive and have a CAN do attitude. It’s not hard.
Note the king is hypothetical and not real because humans are scum, right?
This King would be fair, a liberal… very Steve Jobs like in thinking. Kind and even handed and would grant amnesty to wicked people like Cheney and Karl Rove. I would be a bad king because they would pay dearly.
Think outside the square, Dallas, and go multi-dimensional.
He might be something other than Democrat or Republican.
For instance, I agreed with just about everything he said. And I’m not a republican.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.
it may work on some other planet.
-however, given how completely clueless the usa masses are and how completely corrupted our (well, most all) current governments on this planet are, it would be a disaster.
-s
Back when the constitution was being formed the smaller states were ready to walk out on the entire thing. In the end the electoral college was one of the compromises raised in order to get the smaller states on board.
In many ways the constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government (though the feds don’t seem to really care about the constitution much these days). There is even a way to change that contract but a super majority of the parties involved must agree to this.
Which is were the entire idea of an eliminating the electoral collage falls down. In short what many here want the smaller states to do is all but take themselves out of the selection process for president, in favor of the the bigger states. Its not going to happen, the state legislators would stop any attempt cold.
In a popular vote world, why would the president ever visit the heartland? States like Ohio, Iowa, and the Dakota’s would never see a presidential candidate. It would fracture the country even worse than it is now, after all if the president doesn’t need to worry about those smaller states why would he ever take into account their concerns, and would draft legislation only for the coasts.
In the TV and Internet age, who cares if a candidate comes to a small state to lie in person about what they are never going to do anyway? In the now distant past, campaigning in person was pretty much the only way a voter got to learn about a candidate. Today, their mug and campaign slogans are broadcast to the whole country constantly, so not visiting a small state doesn’t add to the knowledge of the vast majority of voters who don’t attend the event anyway.
The one thing candidates going to a state does is provide revenue to restaurants and hotels that serve the hordes of reporters and is a money sink in the overtime of police costs.
And really? Once in office the winner takes into account the smaller states? If one thing has become crystal clear over the last decade is that once in office, the President is only interested in his buddies like the ones on Wall Street. They only pay attention to smaller states if there’s something in it for them.
Dave, I disagree. Once in office the president does indeed take the smaller states concerns into account, at least if he wants to get reelected. Even if everyone in the Northeast and California was garenteed to vote for Obama he still has to campaign, and take into account the rest of the states. In a popular vote world why would he bother? Just campaign and spend your money in states with huge populations.
When legislation comes down the pipe, and it will benefit the larger population areas at the detriment of the smaller population areas (think Gas taxes, which can be offset by taking mass tansit something that can’t be done in smaller population areas) why wouldn’t you screw the smaller population? After all your goal is to get elected.
Finally, like I said before, its the way the contract is structured. We are a nation of STATES, as in the United States Of America, not the United People of America. In order to get smaller states (which the country needed in its founding) the larger ones made an agreement to give up some power to the smaller states in order to get the on board. You can’t just take away that agreement because you don’t like it, and you don’t like a results of an election that happen last decade.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers — including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to over 2/3rds of the states and their voters. 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. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 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.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That’s more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13).
Small states “rights”? What about the rights of the majority (that would be small “d” democracy)? Is it really a good thing to have some senator from Podunkus single-handedly block legislation because the voices in his head told him to?
I’m not saying the majority is always right, but it is always the majority. If 51% of the people in the country want Homer Simpson to be president, can you really make an argument to ignore that? You are right, a state like Wyoming — where the people are outnumbered by pronghorn antelopes — will get little say in who is elected president. Why is that bad?
The Electoral college makes a mockery of one-person-one-vote. A voter in Wyoming controls a much bigger fraction of an Electoral vote than I do in a bigger state. That’s fair? How?
Because this is the United States of America. Not the Democratic Union of America. Would it be fair to pass legislation that is great for California and all the larger states and devastating to the smaller ones.
Voters and legislators in the smaller states are not devastated by the idea.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers — including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
I was not referring to this bill. I was talking in general. However, these states that are voting away their rights are doing a great disservice to themselves. This is a large country and values do change from state to state. Even though some that post on this blog think if your values are differ from their own you are some kind of idiot. This country was built taking into account that different places have different people. I value freedom. I value not having to fear being oppressed by those who want to give up their freedom in the name of security.
2/3rds of states and their voters, including 12 of the 13 smallest states, are ignored now in presidential campaigns.
You’re agenda is getting repetitive.
Your, you’re, gah!
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
Now, 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored.
States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president, without needing to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. It has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
The reasons why Dems favor a straight popular vote is because they have enjoyed the various unions’ various “get out the Democrat vote” programs for about 4 generations now (in Chicago, being dead is not an obstacle to voting Democrat). The Dems statistically expect to win any straight popular vote on the national level, especially as Left leaning city populations continue to grow faster than conservative populations. The Dems might change their minds on the Popular vote route if they ever lost their death grip on the black vote, though.
How about changing the current Electoral system by giving the low population states another electoral vote or three? That makes paying attention to the low population states much more attractive.
Better yet, eliminate NH and IA’s first primary vote status. Have the primary election schedules be randomly determined each election cycle so the other states get some early liar’s lovin’ from the candidates over the course of decades.
“I don’t like this idea becasue I perceive it to be an advantage for my political enemies. Why cant we enact a system that favors my political allies?”
You are what is wrong with our political system.
Hey, what do you know? The Troll spoke up, created a false strawman rather than addressing what I said before ending with an insulting and preposterous assertion.
It is, however, nice to know that all by my lonesome I’ve create fundamental, intractable flaw in this country’s political system that can only be corrected by changing the US Constitution. :p
….except that your premise about Dems is flawed.
I never said it was fundamental, intractable, or needed an amendment to change. Now whose putting words in mouths?
Its not a strawman, its the essence of your statement. And you’re the one who advocated changing the electoral system.
Maybe I can be less personally inflammatory: Your attitude and others like it are damaging to our political process, and our very society.
It is strange that the same people who want to protect the rights of minorities would suggest a system in which only the majority rules.
The electoral vote has differed over popular vote 4 times in 230 years. Not sure that kind of record warrants a change. The last time we messed with the election process we got elected senators, in clear opposition to the intent of the framers of the constitution on the office.
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) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
So a land side in the couple of the most populous states will elect the president no thanks.
51% of the vote in each of the 11 biggest states NOW, can elect a President. That’s only 26% of the nation’s voters.
Under National Popular Vote the 11 biggest states, with 56% of the population, would all have to vote 100% for a candidate to win with the only the votes of those 11 states.
oldgulph==excellent contributions. Hope you share a similar expertise on other issues?
endigo==silly notion you are pushing. You either have rule by a majority or by some other minority. When its the majority–usually you know who you are dealing with. With some other minority, all kinds of horrors can be conjured up. If you are going to tout the non-majority position, it is incumbent on you to name what alternative minority should be put in charge==and why?
Chris==it was the intent of the framers that the constitution change over time as desired by the people. Silly to raise the constitution as first drafted to totem status. If you aren’t willing to think for yourself, leave those who are willing alone.
Silly to raise the constitution as first drafted to totem status.
No more or less silly than to fetishize direct democracy.
List all the countries that have gone belly up because they elect their leaders by popular vote.
Electoral College maintains current Plutocratic Oligarchy as started by founders.
Who were plutocrats.
Cursor_
I’m all for it! Get rid of the Senate as well. Screw the small population states!
Late to the comments but here is something from once existing federation of states: the first serious cracks were about the issue of individual votes. We didn’t have electoral college. Majority won. Well, people from smaller states raised hell and demanded that citizens of their states have votes counting more than 1 (say 4 votes) in order to avoid large states dictating future of the country. State with most intense demand for this was the first to separate…
US has benefit of founders who thought about this more deeply than just emotion. US is union of states. States have rights, people have the rights. System is set so that the States, who are separate identities pick a President. It is in power of each state to indeed apportion its votes as it sees fit (as people within it want). If people in certain states want – electoral college votes from it are indeed split proportionally to the popular vote. But this is LOCAL issue and choice. Federal Government must never have any say in it (supporting or opposing any method of apportioning votes States pick). And, as visible from the argument above – taking fundamental rights from the States and placing everything on popular vote is shortsighted and divisive… US is far more diverse country than one from which I came.
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. 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).
2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “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.”
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers — including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
Just have a one party system and get it over with. The East and West coast would rule the country.
Good thing the country does not work like American Idol.
Americ. Love it or leave it comrade.
The fundamental question is: do the states elect the president or do the people, independent of their states, elect the president. The current electoral system is still a majority voting system, but the voters are the states. For a republic comprised of 50 semi-sovereign states, this is still a perfectly acceptable system.
If we were to go strictly by popular vote, most modern election winners only ever win by plurality anyway, so this “majority vs. minority” argument is bogus on its face.
If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured apocalyptic outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
Since 1824 there have been 16 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 (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
Third parties have not proliferated largely because of structural impediments to them put in place by the primary two. What has proliferated is the myth that by voting for a third party, you have thrown away your vote; when in fact, unless you are voting as part of large bloc through collective action, your individual vote means nothing to the election results anyway… especially when you start talking about a single national popular election.
Have read the entire thesis you’ve posted, I understand that by dazzling us with statistics you wish to show how obviously correct a popular vote is; but the fundamental question I posed still remains: should states elect the president or should the states not matter? What has changed in the past 222 years to invalidate the former that we should now shift to the later? A person’s opinion in that question will inform which side of the greater argument they are likely to come down on.
Yes, we need to make liberal vote rigging in cities affect more than just that state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you’d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”
Sure, the founding fathers had “reasons” to create the electoral college.
But think on this: If popular vote had put the president in the white house in 2000, where would all the lives lost in Iraq be, today?
Is preserving the electoral college worth all those sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and friends?
Do I even need to point out the logical fallacies in your post?