Electoral College or National Popular Vote

Even before the election, Democrats have been clamoring for a popular vote. Toward that objective, there is a movement afoot to adopt something called the National Popular Vote (NPV). The National Popular Vote would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate that receives the most popular votes in participating states.

The NPV has been enacted in eleven states representing 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). Note that these eleven states vote for Democrats. The NPV has passed in one house of the legislature in twelve additional states (AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, ME, MI, NC, NM, NV, OK, OR). Eight of these states, representing 57 electoral votes, vote for Democrats.

The NPV proposal is essentially an interstate compact. The participating states agree in advance to automatically allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, disregarding the popular votes in their respective states and nullifying the voters’ will. The NPV would allow 34% of the states to take an election every four years.

Because it is easier to have 34% of the states with the required electoral votes to join the interstate compact that it is to get two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to pass an amendment, the interstate compact becomes a subversive technique to bypass the Constitution without formally amending it.

Advantages of the NPV

Many people believe that a direct popular vote is more democratic and fair than the Electoral College. However, the United States has a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. We have representatives who vote on each bill rather than having all of us vote on each bill.

Proponents of NPV believe that a popular vote ensures that citizens’ votes have equal weight. However, under NPV, the states with large populations will have votes more weighted than smaller states: something the Electoral College was designed to prevent. The Founding Fathers were not in favor of regional presidents.

Disadvantages of NPV

Opponents of NPV believe the NPV promotes regional candidates. If a particular candidate was in favor in California, New York, Illinois and other high population states might not need the votes of other areas of the country. Further, a regional candidate who did not have broad support could lead to a splintered, fragmented country.

Opponents of NPV point to the potential logistical problems: in a hotly contested national popular election, the majority of precincts across the country might require close observation instead of a handful of states or precincts as we do now.

The NPV interstate compact promotes mobocracy at the voters’ expense. Why eeven have an election.

Constitutionality of NPV

The Constitution’s Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) provides that “No State shall, without the consent of Congress . . .enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State . . .” In 1978, in United States Steel Corp., v Multistate Tax Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state compacts require Congressional approval only when they “encroach upon the supremacy of the United States.”

Bypassing the Constitution of the United States to undermine the Electoral College is effectively encroaching on the supremacy of the United States as expressed in the Constitution. The potential of states damaging the nations’ federalist structure through interstate compacts is very real.

“By skirting around the checks and balances of the Constitution, the NPV would risk setting a standard that states can legalize non-congressionally approved compacts as an alternative for a constitutional amendment.”

Which brings us to the Electoral College. Why has the Electoral College lasted for as long as it has?

First, the Electoral College maintains our separation of powers among the three branches. The Electoral College votes only for the President and Vice President.

Second, the Electoral College is fairly accurate. Out of forty-five presidents, there have been only five instances of the Electoral College winner losing the popular vote: about 90% accuracy. If one counts the number of presidential elections (87), then the Electoral College has an accuracy rate of 96% (trivia: of the 44 presidents prior to president-elect Trump, only 21 served more than one term).

Third, the Electoral College protects the interests of the minorities, the small less populated states.

Fourth, the Electoral College prevents victories solely based on densely populated regions.

Fifth, it creates more stability for the political process because it uses the two party system.

Sixth, it promotes federalism by providing each state the freedom to create laws with respect to voting and it gives the states the power to choose delegates to the Electoral College.

Seventh, it elects a president for all the people instead of only people from a specific region.

In terms of fairness, value, support of the federalist model, the Electoral College has operated flawlessly for more than 227 years. The choice is simple: the Electoral College beats the NPV, which should be relegated to the ash heap of history.

38 Comments on "Electoral College or National Popular Vote"

  1. I used to be in favor of the popular vote over the Electoral College. This last presidential election changed my mind as it worked exactly like the founding fathers wanted it too.

    HITLERy won the popular vote because of states like California that have a HUGE Hispanic population and with votes from Criminal Illegal Alien Invaders, and their ANCHOR BABIES that can now vote.

    I see no reason to change it to the popular vote, as this time it kept a Felonious, Treasonous, Criminal from being Crowned Emperor, that would have destroyed our COTUS and Country.

    The system worked this time for “we the people” and to change to the “popular vote’ could in the future be Devastating to our Constitutional “right’s and freedoms”.

    • 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 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

      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 are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    • Adolf Hitler did not come to power in Germany as a result of a national popular vote. In fact, Hitler was rejected by approximately two-to-one nationwide popular-vote margins when he ran for Presidency of the Weimar Republic.
      In the March 13, 1932, election for President, the results were:
      ● Hindenburg (the incumbent)—49.6%,
      ● Hitler (National Socialist)—30.1%,
      ● Thaelmann (Communist)—13.2%, and
      ● Duesterberg(Nationalist)—6.8%.
      Because President Hindenburg did not receive an absolute majority of the votes, a run-off was held on April 10, 1932, among the top three candidates. The results of the run-off were:
      ● Hindenburg (the incumbent)—53.0%,
      ● Hitler (National Socialist)—36.8%, and
      ● Thaelmann (Communist)—10.2%.
      On July 31, 1932, parliamentary elections were held in Germany and Hitler’s National Socialist Party won the largest number of seats in the Reichstag (230 out of 608); however, these 230 seats were far from a majority.
      On November 6, 1932, another parliamentary election was held, and the strength of Hitler’s party was reduced to 196 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag.
      On January 30, 1933, a deal orchestrated by a coalition of parties and power brokers who (mistakenly) thought they could control Hitler. As a result of this deal, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. Once in power as Chancellor, Hitler quickly used his position of Chancellor (and, in particular, the control over the police that his party gained in the deal) to create a one-party dictatorship in Germany.

  2. Got this from a friend yesterday, guess they want the FEW to RULE the many. As noted the left in kalif is what is carrying her in this. Same type of thing in past couple of elections. The smaller states (flyover america) had little to no say in things even though they voted for the opposition they were disregarded and the major leftist leading areas such as the big cities carried the day. Yes my friends a real good idea!

    We hear a cacophony of blaring and bleating from the media and the Hillary gaggle that she won the popular vote and therefore she should be president, 60,839,497 to 60,265,847. 47.8% to 47.3% with the remaining 4.9% going to the other candidates. But here are the facts:

    Trump won the popular vote in 31 states to her 19 and DC. 62% to her 38%. Trump led in the total popular vote for all states except California.

    Hillary won California 5,860,714 to Trump’s 3,151,821. 61.6% to 33.1% exclusive of the other candidates.

    Thus California gave Hillary the popular vote for all states as claimed by the Democrats and the media.

    But deduct her California vote from her national vote leaving her with 54,978,783, and deduct Trump’s California vote from his national total, leaving him with 57.113.976, he wins in a landslide in the other 49 states, 51.3% to her 48.7%. So, in effect, Hillary was elected president of California and Trump was elected president of the rest of the country by a substantial margin.

    This exemplifies the wisdom of the Electoral College, to prevent the vote of any one populace state from overriding the vote of the others.
    Trump’s Campaign Manager, Kellyanne Conway, whose expertise is polling, saw this early on and devised her strategy of “6 pathways to the White House”. This meant ignoring California with its huge Democrat majority and going after the states that would give him the necessary electoral votes to win, FL, NC, MI, PA, OH, and WI.

    You will never hear this from our miserably failed mainstream media!

    • The Oracle of Ticson | December 23, 2016 at 9:14 am |

      Great post. Nice info and well explained.

      TOoT

    • Good post Hank, without the EC and by pure popular vote our Republic is done with a capitol D. California showed everyone how quickly the popular vote can be skewed with ILLEGALS and everyone else that had a drivers license can vote. I hope that I never see the passing of the Electoral College but the liberals will keep working on it so that the west coast and NY can be counted on to vote for the liberal democratic president for eternity.

    • California Democratic votes in 2016 are 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

      The 4.3 million vote difference in California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

      California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
      31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

      In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
      About 62% Democratic

      California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

      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).

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

      In 2000, a shift of 269 popular votes in Florida would have elected the candidate who led the national popular vote by 537,179 popular votes.

      In a US presidential election, one cannot “deduct” the inconvenient votes of a state.

      With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

      A presidential candidate could lose, winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

    • Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

      Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
      “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

      In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
      “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

      Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), and Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969).

  3. The Oracle of Ticson | December 23, 2016 at 9:25 am |

    The overturning of the Electoral Collage is really only considered when Democrats lose under its rules, otherwise during non election years under a general bipartisan consensus it’s a long honored American constitutional tradition that should be maintained at all cost.

    TOoT

    • A survey of Arizona voters showed 78% overall support for the idea that the President should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

      On February 4, 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
      Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
      In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

      Before this election, in Gallup polls since they began asking in 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

      Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

      Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

      The National Popular Vote bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
      Since 2006, the bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
      The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

      It changes 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.

  4. The Oracle of Ticson | December 23, 2016 at 9:26 am |

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    WHY????

    • If you are referring to my comment’s Oracle it because I am NOT 100% politically correct, am Truthful in what I say, and I do believe that the ADI has DEMONcrats on the payroll that have purposely put a TARGET on my comment’s (Back), in order to be Bigot’s and “suppress my opinion’s”, before others can read them and decide for themselves if they agree or disagree with them.

      I have seen other comments here where their use of language is worse, but is NOT reported. As far as I can tell, I am the ONLY ONE being “targeted” in this comment section.

    • The Oracle of Tucson | December 24, 2016 at 5:55 am |

      I wrote that because my posting was delayed awaiting moderation and I failed to get why? It was pretty much to the point, wasn’t vulgar, and I wanted to know why?

  5. I think we have just actually elected a President who
    knows how to actually think, cares about this Republic
    and it’s Citizens and plans to make America Great Again.
    Would someone please tell me why Liberals will fight that.
    You know that is exactly what their plan is. WHY?
    Because that have no plan other than business as usual.
    Fill their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayers

    TRUMP IS:
    AMERICA FIRST FOR THE PEOPLE AND OUR COUNTRY
    DRAIN THE SWAMP
    Trump has already done more positive good for this country than Obama did
    with 8 years in office.
    Are the people behind him.
    All you to do is look at the stock market. ALL TIME HIGH.
    You can bet that none of the Hillary voters are putting their money in this market.
    REALLY.
    The Founding Fathers were correct:
    Electoral College. KEEP IT.

    MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  6. joohn, no you are not the only one that get put in for ‘moderation’. Todays post by me was initially ‘moderated’, but I have also had a lot go through the process and some not posted.

    At any rate this is their news site but it does seem to swing back and forth as to lib/right side views. I have no problem with it, but it is distracting, just like if you look at the fox news site. They do the same thing, lean left then next day are to the right!

    The big thing causing all the ruckus IMNSHO is that the ‘professional politician’ has seen the public tit being cut off to them and others. The new admin has enough and does not seem to be ones that can be BOUGHT like the professional politicians can be and have been. Billionaire club who cares if the country benefits. Just look at bho, came into office without a pot to piss in and no window to throw it out of if he did. His supposed million dollar home was owned by some crook from chicago or at least financed thru him. bho also became a MULTIMILLIONAIRE on a $440000 a year position. His family also benefited as moochells mom had a $150000 or so child care position and has now moved into a GUARANTEED pension from the little gig! I dont want to hear that he made all the $$ from book sales, or it was the $440K position because he footed NO PERSONAL bills during his scam time. He did cause the lose of millions thru personal trips for him and his family member and the 30 or so professionals needed for PERSONAL care. But again that the left for ya, spend other peoples $$ and then reach ot for more, and now are crying because the tit has become covered and not available.

  7. The political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In the 2016 presidential election, the 11 largest states were 7 red states with 152 electoral votes (Texas -38, Florida – 29, Pennsylvania – 20, Michigan – 16, Ohio – 18, North Carolina – 15, and Georgia – 16) and 4 blue states (California – 55, New York – 29, Illinois – 20, and New Jersey – 14) with 118.

    Kentucky (8 electoral votes), Alabama (9 electoral votes) and Tennessee (11 electoral votes), with 28 electoral votes, generated margins of 1,815,055 “wasted” votes for Trump — larger than the margin generated by New York (with 29 electoral votes).

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

    In 2000, a shift of 269 popular votes in Florida would have elected the candidate who led the national popular vote by 537,179 popular votes.

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

    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

  9. 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 Ohio and Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored.

    Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes.
    2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
    Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

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

    The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 23,529 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 24 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party (one clear faithless elector, 23 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

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

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

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

  10. The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

    In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
    “The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”

    The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power — much less federal supremacy — in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

  11. 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) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. It has occurred in 5 of the nation’s 58 (9%) presidential elections.
    The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 16 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 8 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.
    537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
    A difference of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
    In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

    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.”

    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.

  12. With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

    A presidential candidate could lose, winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

  13. With National Popular Vote, 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.

    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 58).

    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.

  14. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

    Voters in the biggest cities 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 population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

  15. The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not protect the two-party system. It simply discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The current system punishes third-party candidates whose support is broadly based.

  16. 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).

    Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

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

    Issues of importance to 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.”

    • You lost get over it. The majority of the country, not votes cast, but the country voted for Trump. When you illegal voter deniers fix the illegal voter problem then come back to us with your report. At least we have tried to present ideas on fixing voter fraud. Making America Great Again! Merry Christmas!

      • US elections are determined by the winner of the most votes. More Americans voted for Clinton than Trump.

  18. A survey of Arizona voters showed 78% overall support for the idea that the President should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

    On February 4, 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
    Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
    In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 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.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
    Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

    Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
    No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
    No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

    NationalPopularVote

  19. After all of the going back and fourth about what is, or is not in the constitution, it comes down to the MOST IMPORTANT thing in this election, which is that the Electoral College kept a Felonious, Treasonous, Traitorous, Criminal from becoming the next president.

    I do not see in my time a “Constitutional Amendment” changing the way that it is presently done, and see no reason to fix something that is NOT BROKEN.

    If the shoe was on the Demoncrats foot, and they won this way, they would agree with the current system.

    Just more whining and sniveling by those that came in second. They need to prepare themselves for the same result’s come the “Mid Term Elections”.

  20. well otto with all your rambling the electoral college does just that. The majority of the voters in the states ARE represented and as pointed out trump won a lot of them. The reason that support of the present system is in question is BECAUSE most do NOT understand what is happening. The rule by mobs is what they are suggesting and not the rule by a republic. As was pointed out kalif is where hitlery gained almost the 2 million she keeps harping about since trump was fairly competitive in the ones she won except for kalif. So are you advocating for mob rule or what? I gave up reading after the 2d post since it was a shorter version of the 1st and the rest were basically the same.

    So if the winner by count only wins in a few states such as happened here, you indicated she would be the winner and the losers supporters would not count is that correct and your position? or are you saying that the winner has to win IN ALL states to win the contest? If that is the case there never will be a winner as not all will vote for the same person as happened here in AZ 49 for trump 45 for hitlery.

    • Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

      Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

      Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

      Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

      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 encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state’s electoral votes

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

      With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

    • The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

      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. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

      Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

      The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing 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 in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

      The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the presidential candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

      In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

      And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don’t matter to presidential candidates.
      Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
      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).
      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).

  21. It’s in the United States of America Constitution. Read it until you understand it.
    The USA is a Republic. Deal with it. Men and Women have died for it and those of us left will defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. We know what and Oath is and honor it. Got it? Good now shut up and be a good citizen.

    • Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

      Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

      Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

      Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

      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 encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state’s electoral votes

Comments are closed.