Rhode Island Brings US More Than Halfway to Overruling Electoral College

A compact between several states will award their electoral votes to the popular vote once they have enough to secure the election

Thanks to Rhode Island, the United States is closer than ever to getting rid of the Electoral College.

Recently, the state signed the National Popular Vote interstate compact, which, when active, will guarantee that all of Rhode Island's electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote in all 50 states.

h/t Adam Simpson

Comments

[Sevo]

There's a reason for the constitution: It is designed to protect us from democracy.

[Smilin' Joe Fission]

Typical rethuglican, that thing was written hundreds of years ago.. total irrelevant into todays progressive society.

/sarc

[Smilin' Joe Fission]

too many beers, not enough edit buttons

[Sevo]

Hey! That's MY excuse!

[OneOut]

PWD should be a federal offense.

And could be one day if the NSA is really listening.

[Cytotoxic]

The EC is probably the worst possible way to do this. I think it is bad for federalism.

[Sevo]

If there's a better *current* way, I haven't seen it.

[Susan Anthony]

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 changing anything in the Constitution.

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

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures 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.

[Susan Anthony]

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

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. When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

[Sevo]

"Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election."

Which is exactly the reason it should be assigned to the trash bin, along with the popular election of the senate.
Direct democracy is mob rule; no more, no less.

[Susan Anthony]

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on, etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.

[Susan Anthony]

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. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 8:52PM |#
"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."

Ya know, there's something to be said for 'no taxation, no representation'.

[Susan Anthony]

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. 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.

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).

[OneOut]

Whatever keeps the boob tube from being overrun with political ads then I am for it

[Susan Anthony]

Be aware that a lack of political ads means a lack of concern by the candidates about your vote and concerns.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of 'battleground' states when it comes to governing.

Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
"Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn't taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states." [only 10 in 2012]

In apportionment of federal grants by the executive branch, swing states received about 7.6% more federal grants and about 5.7% more federal grant money between 1992 and 2008 than would be expected based on patterns in other states.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

[Susan Anthony]

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.

"Maybe it is just a coincidence that most of the battleground states decided by razor-thin margins in 2008 have been blessed with a No Child Left Behind exemption. " - Wall Street Journal

As of June 7, 2012 "Six current heavily traveled Cabinet members, have made more than 85 trips this year to electoral battlegrounds such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a POLITICO review of public speeches and news clippings. Those swing-state visits represent roughly half of all travel for those six Cabinet officials this year."

[RightNut]

Except you conveniently leave out the fact that this scheme can easily be changed by any single state, unlike a constitutional amendment.

Look at the scenario that the Wall Street Journal put forth. Sarah Palin wins the popular vote and thus states are required to give their electoral votes to her, however Massachusetts changes its law at the last minute before the electoral college votes to opt out of the compact. Palin thus wins the popular vote but legally loses the election. The same scenario could be reversed by replacing Palin with Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts with Texas.

If you want to replace the electoral college then fine, don't leave it to the whims of state politicians that have a stake in the outcome.

[Sevo]

RightNut| 8.3.13 @ 8:36PM |#
"Except you conveniently leave out the fact that this scheme can easily be changed by any single state"

Ewww!
I didn't realize it was designed to be gamed by a majority at whim.
So it fails by claiming to be direct democracy and then it fails further in that it can be easily gamed.

[Susan Anthony]

National Popular Vote is definitely NOT direct democracy.

Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 8:46PM |#
"National Popular Vote is definitely NOT direct democracy."

Susan, I'm gonna mention that I have a very short temper when some IDIOT presumes that they can hand out BULLSHIT and I'm not supposed to notice.
Please do not hand out BULLSHIT as you just did.
Oh, and Susan, that wet foot you have is just rain, not me pissing on it.

[Susan Anthony]

"direct democracy"

Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 8:53PM |#
""direct democracy"
Look it up."

Uh, don't bother. I'm well aware of technical claims that 'it's not really like that'.
Andy change from republican controls to direct election is a move toward direct democracy.
Again, don't sling BULLSHIT; you will be called on it.

[Susan Anthony]

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states.

The president would still be elected by the Electoral College.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

We do and would vote for candidates to represent us.

We would not be voting for policies directly. Direct democracy is when citizens vote for policy/law, NOT when we vote for representatives to vote on our behalf for policy/laws.

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 9:03PM |#
"When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states."

VERY clever way to avoid the EC!
There's probably no reason to beat on you; you're just a brain-dead hired to post this shit.

[Sevo]

Could be Mary, but in this case, I'm pretty certain it's either a 'clever' bot or a hired (boiler-room) human.
Someone is funding this, and no one is admitting it (in a quick search). If it was the KOCKS!, it woulda been screamed to high heaven by now.
Dunno, but for all the ducking and weaving, it sure seems to be one more try at one-party rule.

[Susan Anthony]

The National Popular Vote 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."

This six-month "blackout" period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
? national nominating conventions,
? fall general election campaign period,
? Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
? meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
? counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
? scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

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.

[RightNut]

When has the impairments clause ever been used to enforce a state's election law? Since as you point out the delegation of electoral college votes is a state matter, how would this violate existing federal law?

Furthermore, this whole scheme is premised on the fact that states cant opt out, except for the fact that law makers cannot delegate permanent legislative authority to a law. IE a law that says it cannot be changed CAN be changed by the same body that passed it. The compact is built on a house of cards, remove one part and the entire thing falls apart.

[Susan Anthony]

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."

[Susan Anthony]

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."

[Susan Anthony]

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.

[RightNut]

Ok, name the legal precedent dealing with an agreement among states to allocate electoral votes. Well you are at it name the case where a interstate compact was changed by one state and that state was successfully sued.

Also how does the NPVC not violate the compact clause of the constitution? Which states:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

How do you square the NPVC with Virginia V Tennessee? A state could obviously benefit from the election of one presidential candidate over the other, thus requiring the approval of congress and making the NPVC unconstitutional.

[Susan Anthony]

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

Although Compacts Clause language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:

"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:

"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

[Susan Anthony]

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors?."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:

"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

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

[Susan Anthony]

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:

"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."

The Court also noted that the compact did not

"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

[Susan Anthony]

National Popular Vote clearly states that states can opt out of the compact.

"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."

[Susan Anthony]

After a state enters into an interstate compact, the state is bound by all the terms of the compact until the state withdraws from the compact in accordance with the compact's terms for withdrawal, until the compact is terminated in accordance with the compact's terms for termination, or until the compact ends in accordance with the compact's stated duration.

States enter into interstate compacts voluntarily. When a state enters into a compact, it becomes a party to that contract. Consequently, the general principles of contract law apply to interstate compacts. In particular, unless a contract provides otherwise, a party may not amend, terminate, or withdraw from a contract without the unanimous consent of the contract's signatories. Specifically, unless a contract provides otherwise, a party cannot unilaterally renounce a contract.

With the exception of compacts that are presumed to be permanent (e.g., boundary settlement compacts), almost all interstate compacts permit a state to withdraw and specify the procedures that a party state must follow in order to withdraw.

[RightNut]

You didn't answer my questions, all you just posted is that states cannot withdraw because the compact says they cant. Which is why I asked you what the legal precedent was, which you didn't answer.

So either.

A, you're a bot.

B. Your a human parrot who is coping and pasting pre-written arguments.

C. You do not have the intellectual capacity to answer.

I hope for your sake you are a bot.

[Sevo]

RightNut| 8.3.13 @ 9:48PM |#
"You didn't answer my questions,"

OK, boiler-room human.
'Asshole' is paid by number of posts; there is no results metric available.

[Susan Anthony]

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."

[Susan Anthony]

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.

[Sevo]

So, this is couched in all sorts of wherefores and howevers, well designed to be gamed by one-party states?

[Susan Anthony]

No. The bill is very simple. Only 888 words.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.....ompact.php

[Sevo]

888 words of obfuscation! Wonderful.
Go away.

[Susan Anthony]

The bill is very simple to read.

[OneOut]

bot

[John Thacker]

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.

Which is why if we had a close election, we'd get to have a nationwide 50 state recount, instead of one just in one state. Fun times.

[Susan Anthony]

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation's 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

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. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to 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.

[umh]

What is a state going to do when they have to cast their electoral vote counter to the votes of the states voters?

[Sevo]

"What is a state going to do when they have to cast their electoral vote counter to the votes of the states voters?"

Uh, what?

[Susan Anthony]

States that have enacted the National Popular Vote bill will cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote.

Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. 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.

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).

[Susan Anthony]

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 state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

Support for a National Popular Vote

South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.

Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2.

Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2.

NationalPopularVote

[Sevo]

Yes, Susan, most everyone who posts here is well aware of the stupidity of the average voter, and therefore the requirement to avoid direct democracy.
Are you trying to prove you're the 'average voter'?

[Susan Anthony]

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338?70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 8:54PM |#
"In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338?70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole."

Are you familiar with 'appeal to authority'?
Do you realize you're posting on a site that really isn't going to favor Nixon, Ford, Bush and Dole?
Do you realize you've presented all sorts of justifications and not a small amount of bullshit in defense of what looks like 'solution' to what is no problem?

[Susan Anthony]

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

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 conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to 'battleground' states when it comes to governing.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 9:05PM |#
..."Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states."...

Oh my, yes! Then all of our problems are solved!
'Susan" or whoever you are, did anyone tell you that you're posting on a site that favors libertarianism? Do you have the slightest idea of what that means?

[anon]

... And not a single fuck was given.

[Susan Anthony]

Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson (R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.

National Popular Vote's National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R?UT), and David Durenberger (R?MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R?AL).

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

[Finrod]

It doesn't matter who supports it, it's still A Really Dumb Idea.

Imagine the 2000 election, except instead of just Florida, it's every bloody state in the union.

Blue states and red states would be ginning up votes because they could. The election would go to the side that could gin up the most voter fraud without getting caught.

Neither side would believe the other wasn't trying to defraud the election, and both sides would probably be right.

It's a dumb fucking idea and I hope it dies the pitiful death it deserves.

[Susan Anthony]

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

[Susan Anthony]

Foreseeing apocalyptic mythical fraud as a reason for keeping a system where most people's votes don't count for anything is not a compelling argument.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

[BigT]

Foreseeing apocalyptic mythical fraud as a reason for keeping a system where most people's votes don't count for anything is not a compelling argument.

BS. We have mucho voter fraud today. This would make it worse. You can't say we don't have voter fraud when most states don't even check who is voting. How would anyone catch fraud unless they are looking.

[Susan Anthony]

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

[Susan Anthony]

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005?2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 9:06PM |#
"Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " include:..."

Could be a bot.
Hard to bleeve that a human would offer this pile of shit in the hopes that those who frequent this site would find this of value.
Bot? Not sure. If not, ignorant bullshitter would apply.

[anon]

It's like the Fat Indian, just pasting random bullshit.

[OneOut]

cut and paste bot

not one personal remark

[Sevo]

What's surprising is that the smallest state is supporting an end to that which was designed to check the power of states with larger populations.

[Susan Anthony]

In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

[Susan Anthony]

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

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

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states: 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%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 8:56PM |#
"In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions."

OK, now you've gotten the bullshit award.
There is nothing in any sort of popular vote that would change that stat at all.
You are now recognized as "Lefty Bullshitter".
Go away.

[Susan Anthony]

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

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

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

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 9:07PM |#
"A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods."

No shit Susan, who told you those lies and why do you bleeve them?

[Susan Anthony]

"How will the National Popular Vote proposal affect a candidate's decisions?

First, it will require the candidate to campaign in more places, and in more states. No longer will 10, 12, or 15 states determine the outcome of a presidential campaign. Candidates will allocate their resources to change the minds of voters in more places, because now the votes of each voter in each state could change the outcome in the national election. Today, presidential candidates spend millions to pick up a thousand votes in Florida, Pennsylvania, or Ohio. Under NPV, that money may get spent to change the minds of voters in Washington State, or Georgia, or Texas, or New York, because those votes will now affect the awarding of electoral votes. Since the states will now agree to award their electors to the candidate that receives the most votes in all 50 states, candidates will devote their resources to receiving the most votes nationwide, and not just the most votes in Missouri or Wisconsin.

Second, it will add more legitimacy to the outcome of the presidential election. People still don't really understand how someone can win an election without winning the most votes. No other election in the country works that way. Governors, Senators, and state legislators throughout the country win office by winning the most votes. People understand that, and do not question that outcome. The NPV proposal coincides with the beliefs of most voters on how elections should be decided."

Ray Haynes

[OneOut]

"People still don't really understand how someone can win an election without winning the most votes"

Then let us begin a campaign to educate people to the wisdom of the EC so as to keep the populous coastal states from dominating the country

[Susan Anthony]

"Finally, National Popular Vote preserves the Electoral-College system, and the flexibility that comes with a true federalist proposal. Our federal system has set up a workable framework for elections and governance, granting the states a substantial amount of power to organize their elections and their internal rules in the ways that make sense to the various states. The National Popular Vote proposal respects that process. It sets up a system that makes sense, but allows for changes from the states if the states find that the changes the proposal has implemented are not working. It avoids the inflexibility that a constitutional amendment would impose, and protects the rights and powers of the individual states. It is the blending of common sense and constitutional flexibility that I believe our Founding Fathers contemplated when they drafted the Electoral-College framework."

- Ray Haynes was first elected to the California State Assembly in 1992. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002, including as Senate Republican Whip. In 2000 he served as National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Haynes was again elected to the Assembly in 2002. He is a graduate of the University of Southern California Law School.

[anon]

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed

Oh my god, every smallest state!? You don't say.

[BigT]

n 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.

This plan would guarantee that 30 of the state would receive NO ATTENTION AT ALL AT ANY TIME. Get California, NY, IL, TX, PA, FL and you win every time. This idea sucks big dick.

[Susan Anthony]

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 with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

[RightNut]

And when exactly has that happened? Generally the popular vote and electoral vote are in agreement, and when one is different than the other it is always by a small margin.

[Susan Anthony]

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws 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 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 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.

Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. 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.

[anon]

Way to not answer the question, cunt. Please go die in a fire.

[RightNut]

. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012)

What is your definition of a landslide? In a US presidential election a landslide is any election where the difference is 5% or more(or so I was taught in Pol Sci). So 88, 53% to 45%(8%), 92 was a threeway split, but even considering it was 43% to 37%, 96 was also a threeway split but was 49% to 40%, 2000 was obviously a close election, though not 23% bush, 77% gore. 04 was 50% to 48%, a close election. 08 was 53% to 45%, another landslide. Finally 2012 was 51% to 47%, almost a landslide.

Argumentum ad populum wont get you far on Reason. Very few here care what "Most Americans" think.

[Susan Anthony]

landslide = elections with a margin of 10% or more

[BigT]

Goalposts have been moved.

As above, go die in a fire.

[Susan Anthony]

Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

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

Winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

[anon]

The real question, is who's paying you to peddle this bullshit?

[Sevo]

Yes, Susan, who is your employer?
You stink, badly, of propagandist.

[anon]

She's working her way down to telling us which party pays her to sit at her computer eating doritos and pasting bullshit. I bet we don't get an answer, or get fed more bullshit.

[Sevo]

The posts are pretty clear in that whoever SA actually is, s/he is not typing them; it's copy and paste.
Not sure if SA or the other assholes have a choice to select of alternatives, but if so SA is prolly the most idiotic of the crew hired to pitch this crap; the selections are uniformly failures.
I'm still not certain this is a human; I'd see a Turing test fail so far.

[anon]

I'd bet it is a human. Think about it; a bot would have to find this particularly non-noteworthy "article" about an obscure piece of legislation, then register, then paste bullshit after registering.

Actually, that sounds more likely than some asshole sitting at his computer.

[Sevo]

..."a bot would have to find this particularly non-noteworthy "article" about an obscure piece of legislation,"
That would be easy.

..."then register, then paste bullshit after registering."
That I dunno. IT folks? How hard would that be?

[RightNut]

Not hard, have the bot do a search in a post for keywords, those keywords trigger the bot to post a certain pre set retort. Easy.

[Sevo]

But the registration? Is that easily automated?
The rest is easy for even me to figure; nothing disappears on the web!

[RightNut]

Bots register and post in like every thread here. It's possible the bot is running a search for "National Popular Vote" and whenever it finds an article it can post a reply to it registers for an account.

Better question is who spent the time and money to create a bot to endlessly promote the NPVC.

[anon]

I have an answer: The DNC.

They're upset that the Republicans won way less than the popular vote but still have control of the house.

[Sevo]

"Better question is who spent the time and money to create a bot to endlessly promote the NPVC."

Like the engineering of any product; pay labor to develop automation or pay the labor directly?
Your guess?

[RightNut]

My guess would be moveon.org or a similar actor(Soros maybe).

[Sevo]

RightNut| 8.3.13 @ 10:12PM |#
"My guess would be moveon.org or a similar actor(Soros maybe)."

G-search doesn't list Soros but every supporter is a slimy lefty.
http://www.google.com/search?s.....-veAlmOE4Q

[RightNut]

should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

Um, which is why candidates campaign in places like NH(42nd most populated), CO(22nd), IA(30th), Wisconsin(20th). Yup, huge states. Your perception of electoral politics is incredible one dimensional.

[Susan Anthony]

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just 10 states in 2012- and that the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

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 conventions, will not reach out to about 80% 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 a 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. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election. None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual. About 80% of the country was ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

[Sevo]

Susan Anthony| 8.3.13 @ 9:26PM |#
"The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just 10 states in 2012- and that the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed."

Yes, you mendacious pile of shit, nothing in your power grab would affect that one bit.

[Susan Anthony]

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

[Susan Anthony]

"How will the National Popular Vote proposal affect a candidate's decisions?

First, it will require the candidate to campaign in more places, and in more states. No longer will 10, 12, or 15 states determine the outcome of a presidential campaign. Candidates will allocate their resources to change the minds of voters in more places, because now the votes of each voter in each state could change the outcome in the national election. Today, presidential candidates spend millions to pick up a thousand votes in Florida, Pennsylvania, or Ohio. Under NPV, that money may get spent to change the minds of voters in Washington State, or Georgia, or Texas, or New York, because those votes will now affect the awarding of electoral votes. Since the states will now agree to award their electors to the candidate that receives the most votes in all 50 states, candidates will devote their resources to receiving the most votes nationwide, and not just the most votes in Missouri or Wisconsin."

- Ray Haynes was first elected to the California State Assembly in 1992. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002, including as Senate Republican Whip. In 2000 he served as National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Haynes was again elected to the Assembly in 2002. He is a graduate of the University of Southern California Law School.

[RightNut]

After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election. None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual. About 80% of the country was ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

Ok, so how does the NPVC fix this issue, which you still haven't shown is a problem in the first place? How would a popular vote election include any more of the country? Most campaigning would be done in large states in highly populated areas most easily reached by media markets. So nearly all campaigning would take place in the Bos-Wash megapolis, Florida, eastern Texas, along the great lakes from Buffalo to Minneapolis, and California. This might include more states but would spurn the less densely populated parts of those same states. Thus more rural parts of Ohio, and Florida would never see candidates, and rural states that currently see candidates wouldn't(IA, NH).

Also, what is your definition of rural?

[Susan Anthony]

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 with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

[Susan Anthony]

The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

[Susan Anthony]

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of "wasted" popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California's population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

[Susan Anthony]

The main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

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

If 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 ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

[Susan Anthony]

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

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Under the National Popular Vote compact, votes cast in rural states would all become politically relevant.

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

NationalPopularVote

[Susan Anthony]

Using the rural population (using the 2000 definition found in the Statistical Abstract of the United States), the state's total population, the rural percentage, and the rural index (obtained by dividing the state's rural percentage by the overall national rural percentage of 20.11%). An index above 100 indicates that the state is more rural than the nation as a whole, whereas an index below 100 indicates that the state is less rural.

Thirty-three states have an index above 100 (meaning that more than 20.11% of their population is rural), whereas 18 have an index below 100 (that is, they are less rural than the nation as a whole).

[Susan Anthony]

A survey of Iowa voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President. The question was "How do you think we should elect the President when we vote in the November general election: should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 82% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 77% among others.

By age, support was 76% among 18-29 year olds, 65% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 82% among women and 67% among men.

NationalPopularVote

[Susan Anthony]

A survey of New Hampshire voters showed 69% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 80% among Democrats, 57% among Republicans, and 69% among independents.

By age, support was 65% among 18-29 year olds, 66% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 76% among women and 57% among men.

NationalPopularVote

[Susan Anthony]

National Popular Vote supporters are a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots activists committed to preserving the Electoral College, while guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

We believe in education about the issues, including confronting critics with inconvenient facts and research.

We believe in education about the issues. We don't believe opponents should go unchallenged when they claim their myths as supposed fact.

[anon]

Give it up, whore, you aren't changing anyone's mind with you obvious copy&paste; bullshit job here.

To Susan's employers: Do not pay her for this.

[Thane of Whiterun]

I dunno. Only 4 presidents have been elected without the popular vote, so I don't see this leading to a disaster.

On the other hand, that same fact would seem to suggest there's not much point to the NPV initiative.

And it's still first-past-the-post either way.

[Sevo]

Thane of Whiterun| 8.3.13 @ 9:18PM |#
"I dunno. Only 4 presidents have been elected without the popular vote, so I don't see this leading to a disaster."

It's not that this 'leads to disaster', it's that it moves us just that much closer to mob rule.

[?J?? de ?guila]

Why would they need this when we already have "One Man Five Votes" and "Vote Early And Often" and "Dead Can Vote"?

[Sevo]

Well, not every place is Chicago, but 'Susan' hopes it might be!

[Acosmist]

People who have utterly no idea why the electoral college exists are getting rid of it, because it seems silly to them.

They have no understanding of the founding; too complicated for their tiny little minds.

[anon]

Pretty funny; I got over that when I was 12.

[Susan Anthony]

National Popular Vote does not get rid of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the Electoral College votes-- enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the Electoral College 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 would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

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

[OneOut]

It may not get rid of the EC but it overrides the wisdom of it thereby making the EC moot.

[Sevo]

Well, we got the attention of one of the 'my uncles' sister makes $x' idiots; I'm still curious who it funding the posting idiots.
Go here: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ and you'll find that it's 'supported' by various politicos, but not a word regarding who is putting the money in to support the drones.

[Susan Anthony]

Over 90% of the contributions supporting the National Popular Vote effort have come?in about equal total amounts?from
? Tom Golisano (a pro-life, anti-Buffett-rule, registered Republican businessman residing in Florida) and
? John R. Koza (a pro-choice, pro-Buffett-rule, registered Democratic businessman residing in California).

[Cytotoxic]

Canada is more federalist than America and I'm pretty sure the EC is a big reason why. The EC means that only a handful of swing states are worth respecting. Everyone else can treated like chaff who cares they vote for the same thing everytime anyway.

Democracy is bad and the EC is making it worse.

[RightNut]

And thati s a fine argument against the electoral college. That doesn't mean the NPVC is the correct solution, especially since the constitution has a mechanism to remove the electoral college already.

[Susan Anthony]

National Popular Vote does not remove the Electoral College.

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."

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.

[Susan Anthony]

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. Now, from 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. 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.

[OneOut]

"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."

Any chance we can go back to the "must own property to vote rule ?

[RightNut]

This is a bot guys, look at how it focused on the words "remove" and "electoral college".

Maybe I can bait it:

The national popular vote compact is a endrun end run end-run around the constitution which needs an amendment which is built-in to make changes. The Founders had property and thus wanted a winner-take-all winner take all system for the electoral college.

[Finrod]

The Electoral College means cheating doesn't change anything in the highly partisan states. Do you really want Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Utah, Oklahoma and Kansas cheating up votes for Team Red while New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, DC, and Connecticut are all cheating up votes for Team Blue?

That's what you would get with a NPV.

[Susan Anthony]

The current system means one state can cheat with just say 537 votes to win the state and the presidency, despite a more than 537,000 national popular vote lead by the other candidate.

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 closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

[John Thacker]

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

No. "As easy to switch" should not be judged on raw numbers alone. That's an absurd argument.

First off, in general the closeness required to have a recount in elections is measured by a percentage of the vote.

For example, it is most easy to manipulate the vote in states that are dominated by one party, since that party will overwhelmingly control the offices of government in that state. Under the current system, that doesn't matter, since that party will win the state regardless.

However, under National Popular Vote, you would have states that are dominated by one party doing their best to engage in mischief in order to change the popular vote. Perhaps the efforts of each would counteract the others, but surely that's no less true in the case of an individual state.

[John Thacker]

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

A National Popular Vote system. We clearly saw during the Florida recount that individual counties dominated by one party, as well as state election officials, could twist the process to favor their national party. Now imagine that sort of recount in a one-party dominated state.

The most corrupt vote suppressors do not and cannot practice in evenly-divided, closely watched states. They exist and can run freely in the one party states where the opposition is feeble and holds no statewide office.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Electoral college is fine, but they should be apportioned more on a district level rather than state level. We're a nation of purple states, not red or blue states. Well, mostly.

[Sevo]

Yeah, but if we opened the constitution to modification, there isn't a single part of the BoR that would be accepted.
Speech?! Well, I guess if you spoke as I approve!

[Susan Anthony]

Maine and Nebraska use a district winner method.

A majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

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

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

[anon]

Damn Fist, you haven't been to the northeast lately, I see.

[Susan Anthony]

The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 20%) that now get overwhelming attention, while 80% of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

[John Thacker]

A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 20%) that now get overwhelming attention, while 80% of the states are ignored.

And under National Popular Vote, small states and low density areas would be ignored, since they generally wouldn't be good use of a candidates' time.

[Susan Anthony]

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

[Sevo]

The "Susan Anthony" boiler room human seems to have left the room.
Not surprising and it is obvious that it was a paid performance; the SA character never responded *in particular* to any of the comments. The responses were all generalized. There was no personal investment in the claims: 'Hey, they pay me to lie? I lie.'
Who is paying the human 'bot' remains a mystery to me.

[RightNut]

Eh, I'm sure NPVC proponents will recycle Susan Anthony's arguments, so it was worth it for the practice.

[Susan Anthony]

I enjoyed a lovely dinner.

[Carlee021]

I build $82h whereas i am traveling the planet. Last week I worked by my laptop computer in Rome, Monti Carlo and at last Paris???This week i am back within the USA. All I do square measure simple tasks from this one cool web site.go to this site home tab for more detail .... http://WWW.JOBS31.COM

[Squirrel Hill]

Since it's pretty much just blue states that are joining the National Popular Vote Interstate compact, the project can only end up benefiting the Republican candidate in an election, not the Democratic candidate. Here are 226 examples of Barack Obama's lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc. http://danfromsquirrelhill.wor.....obama-226/