Blue states band together looking to bypass Electoral College

[PatrickforO]

21. Let me try and explain it in a way that cracks open the myths surrounding

the NPV compact.

From my perspective, we've had three presidential elections stolen since the year 2000. Three. This last one, Clinton had 2.9 million more votes than Trump. 2.9 million. Yet, due to the electoral college system, Russian hackers were able to help Trump win by 25-35K votes in key districts in a couple of swing states. And because of that, he won the Electoral College vote, but not the people's vote.

This is an explanation from the official site, which I encourage you to visit. Here is the link to that site: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/answering-myths

As a Coloradan, I supported this effort.

Now, before the excerpt, let me say one more thing: you can tell a tree by its fruit. The Democrats are generally FOR this because electing a president based on the national popular vote is more, well, democratic than relying on an antiquated group of people using a system designed to prop up slave states. The people against NPV? You guessed it. Nearly ALL Republicans.

The small states (the 13 states with only three or four electoral votes) are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. The reason is that political power in presidential elections comes from being a closely divided battleground state, and almost all of the small states are noncompetitive states in presidential elections.

The small states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. The 12 small non-battleground states have about the same population (12 million) as the closely divided battleground state of Ohio. The 12 small states have 40 electoral votes—more than twice Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. However, Ohio received 73 of 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-sized states to voters in a handful of big states that happen to be closely divided battleground states in presidential elections.

The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system has long been recognized by prominent officials from those states. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly small states in suing New York (then a closely divided battleground state) in the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get state winner-take-all statutes declared unconstitutional.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, a vote for President in Wyoming is equal to a vote in California—both are politically irrelevant.