End the electoral college

[wilt the stilt]

can we please end this travesty. Ever since I studied this pathetic excuse for a system of electing the president I have been against it. It promotes regionalism over unity. It perverts the campaigns and allows a very small number of states elect a president. Whenever I hear the argument that the big states would control everything I shake my head.

The campaigns would have to focus on a unifying national message and it would be healthy for our nation. The electoral college is divisive and should be ended.

[Scuba]

1. Agreed. Here's a good mathematical case for why...

[mvymvy]

2. The National Popular Vote Bill

The National Popular Vote bill 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 more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored.

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 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 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. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

[Angleae]

3. It's completely unenforceable.

If some state legislature wan't to give their EVs to the minority candidate they will. No state law may override the US Constitution nor may any law tell anyone how to vote.

[mvymvy]

5. Realities

National Popular Vote does not override anything in the US Constitution.

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.


The bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
& &

There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. Faithless electors are not a practical problem, and most states have complete authority to remedy any problem there could be, by means of state law.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

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

[Angleae]

6. The whole thing boils down to one question.

Can state law tell someone how to vote? I doubt it will pass constitutional muster in SCOTUS as it goes against the very definition of a "vote"

[joeglow3]

10. Neither party will allow it to happen

I live in Nebraska and we split out votes. Republicans are fighting like crazy to get rid of it (especially after Obama got 1 vote in 2008) and Democrats are calling Republicans corrupt who want to take a voice from the people.

Separately, Republicans are calling Democrats corrupt for not allowing the people of California more say by splitting their electoral votes and Democrats are fighting like crazy to keep it.

[Nye Bevan]

14. There are all kinds of constitutional problems with National Popular Vote.

The Electoral College works, in conjunction with other constitutional institutions such as the enumeration of federal powers and the bicameral Congress, to maintain the Framers' anticipated balance between state and federal authority. Together, these institutions form a coherent federalist system. And this system poses considerable-and likely fatal-legal and practical barriers to the NPV's efforts to institutionalize majoritarian elections.

The most significant constitutional challenges to the NPV will likely arise under the Compact Clause, which forbids states from entering into "any Agreement or Compact with another State" without the "Consent of Congress." NPV supporters highlight that this Clause is interpreted loosely, and that current jurisprudence, as represented by U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978), forbids only those compacts that "enhance[] state power quoad the National Government." Accordingly, NPV supporters presume their anticipated compact effects a horizontal shift in power among states rather than affecting the vertical relationship between federal and state power. But this argument is patently thin. There are few subjects likely to upset U.S. Steel's vertical balance more than the means by which states select a federal executive. The NPV compact would take effect once the combined electoral votes of the participating states could determine the election's outcome. The ability of a few states to determine election outcomes would give "the states" a unified face and an important advantage in bargaining with the federal government. As Adam Schleifer points out in his article Interstate Agreement for Electoral Reform, the NPV compact would also prevent the House of Representatives from acting as an Electoral College tiebreaker in the way the Twelfth Amendment anticipates. Predictable state voting prevents ties and nullifies this potential federal presence, further disrupting the vertical balance.

The NPV also faces a number of other significant constitutional obstacles. In New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court instructed that "[a] departure from the Constitution's plan for the intergovernmental allocation of authority cannot be ratified by the ‘consent' of state officials" because "the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals" (emphasis added). While New York dealt with the specific issue of anti-commandeering, the Court conveyed a broader concern for the preservation of federalism. This discredits the NPV movement's claim that the constitutional freedom of states to allocate electoral votes allows them to allocate by reference to the national majority alone. And the NPV compact's form is independently objectionable. As the Supreme Court has objected to the Line Item Veto Act and other circum-constitutional shortcuts, the Court would presumably take issue with the NPV compact, which, as The New York Times has pointed out, blatantly advertises itself as an "end run."

Yet even if the NPV overcomes the challenges to its constitutionality, it will fail to eliminate states' federalist participation in presidential elections. The process it envisions is not truly majoritarian. Though the NPV hinges its arguments upon the supposed vestigiality of the Electoral College, it leaves the Electoral College in place, depending upon its state-centric system in a fundamental way to facilitate the NPV's goals. The states' uneven electoral weights make the NPV compact easier to effectuate than a constitutional amendment. Because of these weights, as few as eleven pro-NPV states could reconfigure the country's electoral process. And highlighting this fact is more than a formalistic endeavor. Allowing the states to institutionalize majoritarianism ignores that citizens have made a substantive choice to temper their majority interests through the reigning constitutional order. It also denies that majoritarianism is an ideology, that a state's choice to vote in line with the national majority is still a choice, and that a state's agency in this choice is irremediably federalist. Also, as Schleifer highlights, the perceived unfairness of an NPV-initiated majoritarian system could generate a pro-federalist backlash among states not party to the agreement. Since states currently tally their own votes, non-participating states could purposefully obfuscate to prevent NPV states from discerning the national tally or from effectuating the compact more generally.

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/ideological-endowment-the-staying-power-of-the-electoral-college-and-the-weaknesses-of-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact

You really need a Constitutional Amendment to end the Electoral College.

[Zebedeo]

4. Each state has a number of electors equal to its total Congressional representation

The congressional representation of the states is what it is because of the Great Compromise of 1787. Without this compromise, the less populous states never would have agreed to join the Union and we would not have the nation we do today.

[2ndAmForComputers]

19. Why must this compromise extend to the Presidential election?

Isn't their disporoportionately higher representationin the HoR enough for them?

[Major Nikon]

7. Sounds great, but not likely to ever happen

You need 3/4ths of the states to ratify. You'd be lucky to get half.

[mvymvy]

9. National Popular Vote is not a constitutional amendment

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote 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.

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.

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.

2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

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 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. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

[Major Nikon]

12. That doesn't end the electorial college as the OP suggested

Furthermore even to get some semblance of nullifying the electoral college, all states would have to comply instead of 3/4ths.

Even then it still wouldn't be as if the electoral college didn't exist because you haven't changed how many electors each state gets. Consider that Wyoming gets 3 electors. With a population of 568,158, that's 1 elector for every 189,386. Now consider California with a population of 37,691,912 and 55 electors. That's 1 elector for every 685,307. That means that a vote in Wyoming counts for 3.6 times more than a vote in California.

There's only one way to insure that whichever candidate receives the popular vote wins without a Constitutional amendment. Every state in the union would have to require all of its electors to vote with the popular vote.

[mvymvy]

15. National Popular Vote does not end the EC, but it does make every vote equal

No. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution, and only needing states with 270+ electoral votes to enact it.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote 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 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.

[Nye Bevan]

18. And it's probably unconstitutional.

Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:25 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=252578

Attempts to do an "end run" around the Constitution tend to not work.

[upi402]

8. Would be great -IF...

The Supreme Court were a valid court.
The Congress was still functional.
And if we were not already disenfranchised by the known, and yet to be revealed, neocon tactics.

It would be great to have our country back. I'll do my part, but it's hard to compete.

[Snake Alchemist]

11. As long as you like having the interior states unpaved. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

13. No, we can't

It is a political impossibility.

It would require a Constitutional Amendment and you are never going to get a 2/3 vote in favor of it in either house of Congress nor will 3/4 of the states ever ratify it. Expecting all of these things to happen is pure fantasy. It would require many states to vote to lessen their own political impact.


It can't be done.

[mvymvy]

16. NPV does NOT require a constitutional amendment. It is 49% of the way to going into effect

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (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, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% 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.

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 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% 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.

More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. 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.

When the National Popular Vote 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 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 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. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

[Motown_Johnny]

17. What stops a state from just not doing this, or

deciding to switch back after they figure out that now only the high population states get all the attention?

I still consider this a political impossibility. People in low population states will never go for it and even if they do, for one cycle, they will rebel and insist their electoral votes be awarded as a block again.

Hell, just wait until some states with an even number of electoral votes award half to each candidate effectively having no effect on the race.

I consider this entire idea a pipe dream.

[Nye Bevan]

20. or if (say) Texas chooses to not participate, and declines to provide a popular vote count?

What if they stop counting as soon as it is certain that Texas has voted for the Republican, so that all their electoral votes will go to the Republican (they are still using the old system as they have not signed up for NPV), but since they stop the counting, they will not provide a popular vote count for Texas?

[mvymvy]

22. Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 6 of the United States Code Requires States to Report Totals

When the National Popular Vote compact is in effect, the enacting states would control the majority of electoral votes (270+) needed to win the Presidency.

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas&quot in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

Making election returns secret is not within the realm of political possibility in the real world. This far-fetched possibility assumes that there is a state in the country whose legislature, governor, and voters would permit making election returns secret for any reason.

[Nye Bevan]

23. And what if Texas refuses? What's the remedy?

Send US marshals to seize the ballots at gunpoint and count them themselves? Put the governor and/or the members of the state legislature in federal prison?

And do you trust Texas anyway to give an accurate popular vote count in this circumstance?

No, NPV is a too-clever-by-half attempt at an end-run around the Constitution. If you want the Presidential election to be decided by popular vote, you need a Constitutional Amendment.

[mvymvy]

21. 49% of the way to going into effect - Enacted by 3 jurisdictions among the 13 smallest states

You don't understand the bill. No state would ever award half of their electoral votes to each candidate.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)

The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get all 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.

The bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (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 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.

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, including the Delaware House of Representatives in June 2011, and been enacted by three jurisdictions.

2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

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 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. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

[Motown_Johnny]

24. I'm still not buying it

Getting 49% of the 270 electoral votes isn't a big deal. You are saying that right now you have about 25% of the country signing up for this. I'm not impressed.


I expect there might also be a backlash once the states that do not sign on are cut out of the system. If this pipe dream is ever enacted I expect it to be challenged in the courts.

[Nye Bevan]

25. It would be a constitutional and administrative nightmare.

Instead of wasting time on this half-assed attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution, the popular vote advocates should pursue their goal via a Constitutional Amendment.

[mvymvy]

26. NPV achieves the goal of guaranteeing the Presidency to Candidate with most national popular votes

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

& & &

Under the National Popular Vote compact, the mechanics for counting and tallying votes for President at the precinct local, county, and state levels would be the same as they are today.

The only difference is that each state’s chief elections officer would add up the popular vote totals from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine which slate of presidential electors will be called upon to cast the state’s electoral votes.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. But it would be the popular vote of only the states in that 270 block

and seemingly without any regard for the popular vote in the rest of the states.


So it doesn't guarantee anything

[mvymvy]

31. Winner of Popular Vote in ALL 50 States and DC gets NPV's enacting states' electoral votes - 270+

No, Johnny.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)

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. That majority of electoral votes of the enacting states, guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. I'm still not buying it.. again

I can see that in theory you might get one cycle where this could be in place, in theory. After that then any state that sees itself as having it's electoral votes going to a candidate other than where they would have gone to in the current/original system will withdraw from the system.


I know that if Michigan had to give it's electoral votes to an (R) after a (D) won the popular vote here I would be outraged.

This system requires to many people and to many states to reduce their/it's political impact for this to ever work.

I'm still calling it a pipe dream.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. see my post #13 of why this can't be done

[mvymvy]

32. See Post #16

[Rex]

27. Why? Don't you like a select group picking our leader for us?

Why do you hate our freedoms so much?

[zipplewrath]

30. It won't change much

yes, there have been a few (3?) elections that it would have affected, but predominately the popular vote, and the EC tend to align. And I think there is a certain amount of "becareful what you wish for" here.

80% of the population lives within 100 miles of the coast/border. That's kinda misleading because it includes basically all of Florida. But none the less, one has to understand that the EC not only distributes by state, but to some extent by geography in general. Furthermore, the stats about 10 years old, but something like 25% of the total population lives between San Diego and LA, plus a swath between DC and Boston. If you switch to a purely popular vote, the middle of the country will truely become "flyover" country.

Right now, what the EC does to some extent is require SOME distribution of voting. Once you get 50% of the vote in some state like NY, getting the other half doesn't really accomplish anything. IF there is a modification to be made, it may merely be some manner of proportionality to the EC votes within a state. Basically ending "winner take all". That would ensure that the EC result stay closer to the popular vote, but also ensure that all states "matter" to some extent.

The distribution problem in the Senate, however, is MUCH larger.

[mvymvy]

33. Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

[mvymvy]

35. About 76% of Americans and States are Ignored Under the Current System

Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

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). 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 shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% 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.

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 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% 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.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.

More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. 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.

& & &

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just from San Diego to LA, 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.

& & &

FYI, With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, 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 -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

[taught_me_patience]

36. When a presidential candidate spends more time in Iowa than California

something is seriously wrong with the system. I don't think a candidate has ever stopped here to campaign in my lifetime. Iowa has a population 1/3 of just Los Angeles.

[Nye Bevan]

37. That's a totally separate issue. The primary system is decided by the parties

and is not related to any of the proposals in this thread.

[taught_me_patience]

38. Iowa was a swing state in 2008

And I remember Obama campaigning hard there.

[Nye Bevan]

39. Sorry, thought you were talking about the caucuses (nt)

[Bruce Wayne]

40. To answer your Q directly: "No, we cannot end it."

The obstacles to replacing it with a popular vote election process are prohibitive. All the smaller states that benefit from it have the political capacity (and every political motive) to reject any effort at replacing. Every Republican who thinks it favors his party will oppose the effort--particularly those who are the most politically active. What's more, every Democrat who thinks it favors her party will oppose it, too.

This is just one of those things that we're all stuck with, here in our imperfect world (a.k.a., Earth One).