• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Make the Popular Vote Count?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Democrat Proposes To Add New Members to the Electoral College

If Mitt Romney wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, there will be the usual proposal to abolish it, something the small states will veto immediately. Now Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), has come up with a less radical proposal: give the winner of the national popular vote 29 electoral votes. This proposal, if passed by Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states, would give candidates reason to campaign in California, Texas, and other states where the outcome is clear from the start. It would be a play for those 29 EVs. He didn't explain why he chosen 29 and not 35 or 22 or some other number, though.
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Democrat Proposes To Add New Members to the Electoral College

If Mitt Romney wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, there will be the usual proposal to abolish it, something the small states will veto immediately. Now Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), has come up with a less radical proposal: give the winner of the national popular vote 29 electoral votes. This proposal, if passed by Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states, would give candidates reason to campaign in California, Texas, and other states where the outcome is clear from the start. It would be a play for those 29 EVs. He didn't explain why he chosen 29 and not 35 or 22 or some other number, though.

Because he's a Democrat, & he's from New York. Why not 25 ? 1/2 a vote for each state ?
 

kohler

Member
Presidential elections don't have to be this way.

The National Popular Vote bill is a the more likely reform to happen. It would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

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. 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.

In Gallup polls since 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 (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). 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 recent 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: AZ – 67%, 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 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
 

Mike

Well-known member
The Electoral vote is for good reason. Leave it alone.

I would be all for a major revolution should it be repealed.

I am not alone in this. A true Democracy is nothing but "Mob Rule".
 

Larrry

Well-known member
When they devised the electoral votes they knew what they were doing. Anyone who is from a rural area and wants the popular vote is ignorant.
You would lose any say so in the running of this country.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Larrry said:
When they devised the electoral votes they knew what they were doing. Anyone who is from a rural area and wants the popular vote is ignorant.
You would lose any say so in the running of this country.

And not just rural areas.....rural states for that matter.
 

cowman52

Well-known member
When the electoral college was thought up, the founders were smart enough to try and make every vote count and every region represented, the thought that new York city, or philadelphia being able to elect a president and Jonestown Virginia, or Hamilton Carolina being forgotten about was their reasoning.
Besides, you think the small states are going to give up their say to 10 large states with 50.00001 percent of the vote. It ain't gonna happen.
Takes 34 to make it happen---poll to your hearts content---no way
 

kohler

Member
Mike said:
The Electoral vote is for good reason. Leave it alone.

I would be all for a major revolution should it be repealed.

I am not alone in this. A true Democracy is nothing but "Mob Rule".

With National Popular Vote, the Electoral College would still elect the President.
The state bill does not repeal the Electoral College.
With National Popular Vote, we would not become a true democracy.

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."

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. That majority of Electoral College votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

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 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. At most, 9 states will determine the 2012 election.
 

kohler

Member
Larrry said:
When they devised the electoral votes they knew what they were doing. Anyone who is from a rural area and wants the popular vote is ignorant.
You would lose any say so in the running of this country.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.

Rural state polls support for a national popular vote: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

* * *

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and 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. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their 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 candidates. 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).

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 a 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.

When and where voters matter, then so are the issues they care about most.

***

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

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

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

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states 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."

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

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

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, 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 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

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

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
 

kohler

Member
Larrry said:
yep, the metropolitan areas would run the country.

With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal. Candidates would reallocate the money they raise to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

16% of Americans live in rural areas.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
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 and 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 and exurbs often vote Republican.

Any candidate who ignored, 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.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.


With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who ignored, 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 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 Wal-mart mom voters in Ohio.
 

kohler

Member
cowman52 said:
When the electoral college was thought up, the founders were smart enough to try and make every vote count and every region represented, the thought that new York city, or philadelphia being able to elect a president and Jonestown Virginia, or Hamilton Carolina being forgotten about was their reasoning.
Besides, you think the small states are going to give up their say to 10 large states with 50.00001 percent of the vote. It ain't gonna happen.
Takes 34 to make it happen---poll to your hearts content---no way

With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with 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.

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).
 

kohler

Member
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

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): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

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).
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Kolher you explanation makes sense to me :D But then I'm Canadian. :D :D

In Canada the President would be the leader that had the most members of congress elected. Unfortunately the areas with larger populations elect more members of parliament so rural areas can be left out. The election can be decided before the polls close in the west. :?
 

Larrry

Well-known member
What you have so many of the times is people acting like little kids. When things don't go their way they want to change the rules. Then the next time they won't go their way they want to change the rules back.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Opinion: Polarized US political system responsible for dysfunctional elections

By Juan Williams - 10/29/12 05:00 AM ET


In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush, but still lost the election.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Florida gave Bush that pivotal state, and doomed Gore to lose the Electoral College.

That odd scenario — where the candidate with the most votes loses — has happened three times in U.S. history.


Will 2012 become the fourth time it has happened?



At the moment, Republican Mitt Romney leads among likely voters nationwide in several polls.

But President Obama’s campaign remains confident because he leads in enough states to assure him the 270 electoral votes needed to capture a second term.



“We [would] win the election if it were held today,” said senior White House adviser David Plouffe.

“In the battleground states, we think we’ve got many more pathways to 270 electoral votes.”

Romney senior campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom was similarly blunt in his assessment last week.

“The cake is baked,” he said. “Something structural changed in that first debate, and all the movement has been toward Gov. Romney.”

Yet, according to statistical guru Nate Silver, of The New York Times, President Obama has about a 74 percent chance of being reelected.

Mitt Romney has only roughly a 26 percent chance of becoming the 45th U.S. president.

According to Silver, President Obama will win 295 electoral votes and Romney will net 243 electoral votes.

Of the seven battleground states — Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada and Wisconsin — Silver projects Obama will win all of them with the exception of Florida.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina laid out the president’s strategy bluntly in a conference call with reporters last week.

"We're winning the early vote in the battleground states that will decide this election," Messina said.

"The Romney campaign has bet that young people and minorities won't turn out. The early vote numbers are already proving the folly of that gamble, and the wisdom of our plan.”

The Real Clear Politics average of state polls in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada has always shown President Obama winning every one of those states.

Romney has never led in those states, which are so critical to the outcome of the electoral vote.

The 2012 presidential campaign’s turn away from the classic, straight-up, American election — where the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide wins — is another sad reminder of the extreme political polarization distorting today’s politics.

No one talks about a 50-state strategy for winning the presidency these days.

Most of the nation is now made up of fixed red states and blue states.

At best there are a dozen states truly open to casting a majority of votes for the candidate with the strongest message and best candidate.

And in those few ‘swing’ states the contest most often comes down to turnout — Republicans and Democrats concentrating their energies on the so-called ‘ground game’ involved with getting their most reliably loyal voters to the polls.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Polarized US political system responsible for dysfunctional elections
They are only dysfunctional if one is ignorant of the systyem and the way it was set up



The Supreme Court’s ruling in Florida gave Bush that pivotal state, and doomed Gore to lose the Electoral College.
The SC didn't give the election to GW, they basically said for Gore to quit with his trying to recount the votes over and over, he lost



At the moment, Republican Mitt Romney leads among likely voters nationwide in several polls. well duh

But President Obama’s campaign remains confident because he leads in enough states to assure him the 270 electoral votes needed to capture a second term. of course obamas campaign is saying that, if one looks at all the polls and takes the reliabilty into consideration, it really looks like obama could very well end up with less than 200 votes. But heck we will know Nov 6




Carry on with the childish crying.
 
Top