Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?
If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. How we choose a president profoundly impacts how campaigns are run, the importance of swing states and an election’s outcome. It’s certainly no surprise that the Electoral College vs. popular vote controversy has sparked considerable debate. As the issue surfaces heading into November, is it time to graduate from the Founding Father's Electoral College concept, or are popularity contests no way to choose a president?
Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Electoral College
Thanks but no thanks, I don't want the East Coast, California and Florida making choices for the rest of us. The Electoral College makes our vote relevant here in fly-over country.
- arvin
August 29, 2008 4:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You already have much more say than Californians
The only reason California would have more say is that it has more people. You really think that it's wrong for the majority of the population to have the majority say? Also, you're wrong if you're under the common delusion that California is an entirely liberal state that would vote 100% democratic - not a chance.
We are already disenfranchised in Congress... each representative in the house does not represent an equal number of people, we Californians already get substantially less "say" than any other state.
Why do you believe that a few people (in "fly-over country") should be able to dictate decisions with undue weight on the east coast and California? Is your opinion more important than mine?
- lostlo
October 20, 2008 8:55AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Electoral College perpetuates the 2 party system
The 2 dominant parties won't let us drop the antiquated electoral college because it keeps them in a duopoly. We need to drop the electoral college and have a national primary and run-off. 51% should be required for a president to take office. Not 50.5% and certainly not 47% + 1 intern. Meanwhile, the dems and repubs agree, keep the college. We're stuck.
- joelinda September 3, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What's wrong with a system that works?
I'd be curious to know why you don't like the two-party system?
A two-party system encourages citizens to work together in large coalitions before elections. A multi-party system encourages elected politicians to make back-room deals to form governing coalitions after elections.
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 4:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The system doesn't work
I'm not advocating a parliamentary system that requires post election coalitions in this way. I'm advocating a popular vote and run-off system that would allow for multiple parties to gain traction and survive. Coalitions would form before the general election and would realign before a run-off. Like him or not, the fact is that Bill Clinton is an example of a president that never won a popular majority. The majority (definition = more than half) of Americans voted against him in both elections, yet he still took office. That is not the definition of a system that works, if "majority rules" is the intention. The irony is that an amazing number of Americans that don't vote + a large number of those that do vote, still think that America is run by people that gain the majority of a vote. You and I and most of the people on this discussion board know better. I'm advocating a system that gets us closer to majority rule. The current duopoly + the electoral college = broken system.
- joelinda September 8, 2008 9:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The founders reason
the reason we have an electoral college is because the candidates could cry foul over the votes. we saw this with Minnesota when senators coleman and franken were caught in limbo for over 4 months debating on who won, what would happen if we debated for twice that amount of time to figure out who the next, most powerful man in the world would be? there is a reason that the founders saw the need for an electoral college, and that reason was they didnt see the need for a drawn out voting process.
- camdaddy09
June 17, 2009 11:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Finality is guaranteed long before inauguration day in January
The U.S. Constitution , existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee "finality" in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January. These constitutional provisions, statutes, and precedents apply equally to a presidential election conducted under the National Popular Vote legislation and an election conducted under the current system.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."[Spelling as per original]
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets (the so-called " safe harbor" date established by section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code).
In addition, in almost all states, state statutes already impose independent (typically earlier) deadlines for finalizing the count for the presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that state election officials and the state judiciary must conduct counts and recounts in presidential elections within the confines of existing state election laws.
It may be argued that the schedule established by the U.S. Constitution may sometimes rush the count (and possibly even create injustice). However, there can be no argument that this schedule exists in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes; that this schedule guarantees "finality" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December. This existing constitutional schedule would govern the National Popular Vote compact in exactly the same way that it governs elections under the current system.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 12:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CA, NY & East Coast ALREADY deciding for you!!!!
CA, NY & Big population states have more electoral votes - so if you live in Montana - you're vote hardly counts (Honestly in most cases if you stayed home from the polls - it's hard to think you're state's 3 votes will matter too much). I live in NJ - and it drives me NUTS to always read that it's a done deal here (our votes) for Obama. I'm voting for McCain - sometimes you feel like your vote didn't count because it got overpowered by all the Democratic votes in the state. The Electoral College is outdated; we live in a technology savvy world - everyone's vote should be counted. My vote for McCain should be counted amongst all the other people in the USA who voted for him, not cancelled out by the Obama votes in NJ.
- Lola September 6, 2008 6:08AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your vote counts, either way
Under a national popular vote scheme, your vote could be canceled out (in your way of thinking) by losing the national election just the same as it is today when you lose the state-based election.
With the Electoral College, your vote counts... toward electing your state's electors. If your vote, and everyone else in NJ who voted the same way, doesn't count up as high as some other candidate's votes, then you lose. Campaign harder next time, but your vote is counted--it counts--either way.
The question is, I believe, what kind of future do you want for your country? Will you a increase the risk of factional, regional, and radical politics in exchange for this new scheme for national elections?
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 4:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is a very elitist response
And antiquated. Who defines "radical" politics? In my state, I am a radical because I am a liberal. Is that fair? The electoral college guarantees divisive politics that arbitrarily repress my voice. In a national election, everyone should matter, even if you disagree with what I want. That's a free society.
- crunchymom September 19, 2008 3:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I want my vote to count
Alisaterry...Thank You! I may not agree with your politics, but when I vote, I'm singing Solo; I'm not singing as part of a choir.
- richmondspitfire
October 20, 2008 9:36AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The two-party system is not protected now
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 only thing the current system does is to punish candidates whose support is broadly based.
- mvymvy
December 31, 2009 5:49PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hey, don't forget TX
We have more votes than NY and we usually vote opposite of CA, NY, & the East Coast. Unless they vote the right way.
- joelinda September 8, 2008 9:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Republic of Texas
We need to just secede and leave the rest to their mess anyways. With Barrack Hussein Osama, Pelosi the Poodle, and Reid the Nerd running the Country we are doomed. I see gun registration and collection, United Nations total gun ban, rampant abortion, higher taxes, more affirmative action, as well as the end of the death penalty in our future if the dems win in November.
- BigTex
October 12, 2008 6:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Broken and Ancient
It elected Bush to the presidency, despite the fact that more Americans voted for Gore.
Any Questions?
- Jefe32
September 13, 2008 6:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We're talking about the system not one election
People point to the 2000 election as a weakness of the system and then declare "case closed" as if one example alone is enough to discredit a system which has been in place for hundreds of years. Instead of closing your mind after one bad experience, please think rationally about which system would work better in the long run.
I do agree that the 2000 vote was questionable and unfortunate. However, this does not cause me to abandon my reason and turn to the first obvious alternative without considering the implications.
- Doublecheck
October 8, 2008 9:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What implications?
I am not sure that the system would work in the long run. I think that every person should have there vote counted. I do not understand why that would not be the standard system.
You said that this system has been in place for hundreds of years. The reason that the electoral college was created was because during the first elections there was no effective and standardized form of voting. The states were better equipped to count their own votes, and because states population was a much simpler way to assign value to their votes, that was what was done.
Today, votes are counted electronically with a small margin of error. 126 million people voted in the 2004 election. Over half of those votes were counted in less than a day. With all the technology that we have today, why even break the voting down into states? What does it matter what state they live in. The reason that the electoral college is still in place is because the small states like having more power then they should compared to their size. But if states are not assigned power (only the individual) then i don't see the problem.
And as the title suggests, what would the implications of having everyones vote count for one vote be exactly? I am curious what you think would happen.
- Jefe32
October 9, 2008 7:39AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There is problems with the the system...
(I recognize that’s an understatement but in a sense, the electoral college can work and be a more true representative of the country than either the popular vote and the current electoral college.
I would keep the Electoral College but award the elector votes based on each Congressional District. It’s already being done. It would be interesting to compile data from the 2000 & 2004 elections and see who would have won with a system like this one. Both elections were quite close. It would be along the lines of each House of Representative is picked. The house was in Republican control them but I'm not convinced the Presidential results would have been the same.
The problems are;
1. Each state wood have to abandon the "winner takes all" system as it is now. But, I don’t see that happening in the near future.
2. No matter how vicious Democrat & Republican parties spar together, they will combine forces to keep the two party system, IMO...
- John Q Citizen
February 21, 2009 10:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
2/3rds of the states and people are ignored in presidential elections
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections . Candidates have no reason to poll , visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule 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.
- mvymvy
December 31, 2009 5:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Illogical
Your reasoning is flawed. We simply don't know who would have one the 2000 election if the popular vote system had been in effect. If it had, both parties would have campaigned differently, and the outcome will never be known. It's like saying that some football games would have a different outcome if we counted touchdowns and field goals differently than we do. Any game would be played differently if different scoring rules are in effect, so such hypotheticals are never logically valid conclusions.
- tonybacci
October 12, 2008 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
vote
I would vote for a popular vote system. I currently live in a state where my vote is in the minority, and I would like my vote to count more than it does.
- Oasthad September 15, 2008 10:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Popular vote is a Red Herring
Everyone likes to say that Gore won the Popular vote but Bush won the Electoral College. Who cares? The national popular vote is a Non-Sequiter and a red herring because it plays no role in our election system. Every vote already counts, but it is on a state-by-state basis. The popular vote of each state determines which candidate wins that state's Electors. It isn't that hard to understand. Everyone will still make a big deal over the national popular vote, even though it is irrelevant. This country is not, nor has it ever been, a "democracy." The Founding Fathers viewed democracy as nothing better than "mob rule," and wisely chose to establish a "Constitutional Republic" rather than a "Democracy."
- Nickel
September 17, 2008 7:03PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Electoral College Invalidates Me As a Voter
I live in Utah, where the majority of voters vote straight Republican ticket. My vote for Barack Obama in November will do nothing to help make him president, because all the electoral college votes will go to John McCain. I can do nothing but donate money to help Obama's campaign, because my vote doesn't count.
AT THE VERY LEAST, the electoral college in my state should break down by percentages, so that voters who want to support Barack Obama can actually matter. That would encourage both candidates to actually campaign here - neither of them bothered much, since they know it won't make a difference. How is that a free America? How is that OK?
You cannot invalidate my vote and still be a truly functioning and fair democracy.
- crunchymom September 19, 2008 3:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bush LOST The Popular Vote in 2000...
...and ended up screwing us over for the past 8 years. I think that's evidence enough that the electoral college just does not work.
I live in a state that is largely republican (Texas), and I'm a democrat (even though I'll probably vote republican in this election). I've voted democrat the past two times, and my vote didn't count for a darn thing because our electoral votes went to dumb bunny Bush.
- bagpiper2005
September 27, 2008 4:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
why all or none?
We could actually minimize the impact of the East and West Coast liberals if we gave the winner and loser a percentage of the electors matching the popular vote. California has like 54 votes.....you know that the Republicans can get at least 20-30% of the popular vote there so we could earn 9-16 electors instead of none.....every year.
This would force both parties to campaign in all 50 states and you know after a while you might even see some changes in the liberal/conservative percentages. The best way to support your views is to learn more about the opposition. But when the libs are only hearing from and speaking with libs there will never be a change.
thanks,
Stan
- inventor217
October 11, 2008 3:41PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Proportional approach does not make every vote equal
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.
Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state's bonus of two electoral votes. 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.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Best of Both Worlds
There is a way to change the current voting system to make it more representative of the whole US population. It requires a change to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to :
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of -Senators- to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
This change effectively gives each State, as a sovereign entity, an equal franchise in selecting the President and Vice President. On the State scale, each person would be better represented and provided more individual local power per vote in the electoral process as each voting person represents a larger group (of those who choose to or choose not to vote) on the State scale than on the National scale. On the National scale, each state would be equally represented by the electorate and have equal power in choosing the President/Vice President. While the candidates gaining the majority of electorates would still be elected, no small number of states with larger populations could control the electorate over a larger number of smaller states. There would essentially be 50 games in the election of which 26 must be won (probably actually slightly more giving due recognition to DC and the territories to participate as well). This, I believe would action would provide a more balanced representative government requiring the President/Vice President, and the political parties, to be more responsive and work towards the greater good of the entire country.
- MrJimAK
October 11, 2008 7:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
POPULAR VOTE NOT THE ANSWER
Strict adherance to popular voting will still only cause focus on the very largest states leaving the smaller ones without any campaign activity. The way to achieve broader political activity around the country would be to allocate the electors based on the % of votes received in that state for each candidate. We currently have that system in several states and it assures that the minority votes have a meaning in each states representation at the electoral college. The issue of larger states having more electoral votes does not change and it shouldn't because those states have more citizens. The ratio of electors to voters should be the same across the country.
wrigley
- wrigley
October 12, 2008 11:09AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Popular Vote = Democrats trying to stack the deck
As a NJ resident who sits back helpelessly while my state goes blue each and every election I should be more in favor of a popular vote system to make my vote actually count. However, given the fact that most other countries follow popular vote... and they usually have somewhere between 19-50 different political parties who can't agree on anything... I am in favor of sticking to the electoral college. If Europe is an example... give me Electoral College anyday. Popular vote is an issue that only gets attention when Democrats continually lose elections as they're looking for other ways to stack the deck in their favor. This is why it's usually the blue states, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois that want to pass legislation to give their states electors to the popular while at the same time, obstructing any attempt by Republicans in California to split up that states 55.
- t88132
October 12, 2008 3:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How to Fix the Electoral College
It's obvious that many people are frustrated by the Electoral College system, usually because they don’t understand it. It feels so arbitrary and doesn’t make sense to most people. The truth, however, is that it was established to protect us from mob-rule. No, not mob as in gangsters and thugs, but mobs as in angry masses of people trying to out-yell the rest of the people. Simply put, it was established to prevent the major cities like New York, Miami, Chicago, Las Angeles, and the like from dictating every election while the rest of the country can’t get a word in edge-wise. Our country is simply too big, and too diverse for direct voting to be successful, hence why the Electoral College was established to maintain balance. That doesn’t mean the system is perfect, however.
Here’s the solution: Instead of the winner takes the state, the winner should take the district. That is, our states are already divided into political districts due to the election of representatives in Congress. When a presidential election happens, each district’s representatives should do their job and be required to vote based on their constituency. If their district votes for John Smith, then the representatives for that district should vote for John Smith in the Electoral College vote.
This is a very fair way to provide more direct, popular voting while still ensuring the protections that the college system offers us in the first place.
- GoodThings2Life
October 13, 2008 7:01AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
District method would magnify the worst features of system
Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:56AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fly-Over Country
As another resident of the Midwest, I also believe it is only due to the Electoral College that candidates set foot in small rural states at all. Popular vote always sounds good, until you work out the details.
- Dirkh
October 25, 2008 11:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The United States or The United People: Nationalism on the loose!
A great document we all love begins: "We, the People,"--That's us--"of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union..." Union of what--People or States? Obviously it is talking about states. The election of President has gone from a leader of a Union of States to a leader of welfare reform structured to the passion of the people. A switch to a popular vote seems like the next domino to fall and it scares me to death. I'm by no means an expert, but the history strikes me: It seems ever since the close of the Civil War, a push away from true Federalism (a collection of states united under a federal government with both state of Federal governments possessing certain powers) to a Nationalist system (a single government directing the lives of the people) has and is taking place. (See the Civil War Amendments [13-15], Progressive Era Amendments [16-17,19], etc.) The way I see it, when they dissolve the state lines, that is when we can go to a straight popular vote because that is when it would be the United People and not the United States. With the turbulent times foreseen ahead, now is not the time to test out a drastic change in election of the most powerful position on earth. I do see the constitution as a work-in-process and times will perhaps necessitate alteration; however, I do not see a change to a straight popular vote as a wise alteration. The "Father of our Nation" in his farewell address warned about changes in government, saying that we should "resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious [OR alluring] the pretexts." He went on to say, "In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard..."(1) As George Washington would know, time, habit, and experience are vital. Sadly most Americans lack the experience to say which is better for the nation and those that do may be out voiced (I'm not saying I do).
Thanks for everyone's comments.
(1) http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html (see verse 19)
- SaintElmosFire
October 28, 2008 3:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We the people are the Popular Vote...period.
People - are you forgetting that WE ARE THE PEOPLE not ELECTORAL VOTEs. If we continue with electoral voting - why would I continue to vote - this nullifies my personal vote. As for CA - you need to remember - they may be a large population vote, but because of the Dem's most of them are illegals and can not vote, therefore making that conversation mute.
I say do away with electoral and put the elections back in the peoples hands where it should be!
- Lisa1962
September 22, 2009 3:32PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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 .
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who 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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:44AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Founding Fathers
The Founding Fathers said in 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."
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 rule) 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.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (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 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 rule.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since the 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 rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
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.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Federalism
The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government . The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Republic
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a " democracy ."
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Current system does not provide check on the "mobs"
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections , but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, 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. 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.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." 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 are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Big State Realities
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections , the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support 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 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 votes for Bush in 2004.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Political Realities
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law , it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote . Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Current system does not protect the two-party system
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 only thing the current system does is to punish candidates whose support is broadly based.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:51AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.