Ted Cruz

Why Would Cruz Insult New Yorkers? Thank the Electoral College.

This outdated system gives him no reason to care about offending states he can't possibly win.

|

Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

When it comes to votes, the state of New York is a gold mine. In the 2012 presidential election, more than 11 million New Yorkers were registered. By itself, New York accounted for half of Barack Obama's margin of victory in the popular vote over Mitt Romney. 

You might think Republicans who want to win the White House this year would be trying to improve that performance by appealing to residents of the Empire State. But Ted Cruz is doing the opposite: He sneered that Donald Trump would be bad for America because he "embodies New York values." If Cruz gets the nomination, the state's residents, from Easthampton to Buffalo, won't forget the insult. 

But you know what? Cruz doesn't care. He has no reason to care. That's because of a curious artifact known as the Electoral College. The fact that a major candidate is happy to write off so many Americans is just one more piece of evidence that this system is a bad way to elect a president—and that both parties ought to make it a priority to abolish it. 

Under the Electoral College, we don't have a national election for president. We have 50 state elections, and nearly every one of them is winner-take-all. New York hasn't voted for a Republican for president since 1984—and even if Queens native Donald Trump heads the ticket, it won't do so this year. 

That means all 29 electoral votes will go to the Democrats. It makes no difference if the GOP nominee gets nearly 2.5 million votes in New York, as Romney did, or zero: The Electoral College effect is the same.

Democrats have been ready to scrap this undemocratic system at least since 2000, when Al Gore outpolled George W. Bush but lost the election. The surprise is that Republicans have yet to come around. They don't seem to have noticed that the Electoral College now provides an advantage to the other party. 

In 2004, Bush got 3 million more votes than John Kerry—but if 60,000 votes had shifted Kerry's way in Ohio, he would have been president. In 2012, Republican strategist Matthew Dowd calculated that Romney could get a million more votes than Obama and lose.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have voted Democratic in each of the past six presidential elections. They command 242 electoral votes—just 28 short of the 270 needed to win.

Republicans have states that are just as loyal, but they number only 13, with just 102 electoral votes. To win, the GOP has to carry almost all of the battleground states. 

Partisan effects aside, there are plenty of reasons to retire this jerry-rigged antique. One is that this year's nominees will ignore vast hordes of voters in California, Texas, Illinois and other populous states where the outcome is not in doubt. 

Almost all of their campaign efforts will be made in a handful of decent-sized states, like Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Colorado, that could go either way. If you're in Boston, Nashville or Phoenix, you have as much chance of seeing a presidential candidate in person as you have of shooting pool with the Dalai Lama. 

Defenders of the Electoral College portray it as ingeniously designed to balance the multiplicity of interests in a large federal republic. In fact, it does nothing to strengthen federalism, since it confers no power on state governments. It doesn't protect small states, which get ignored. 

The framers, surprising as it may be, were fallible humans groping in the dark, a long time ago. Stanford historian Jack Rakove, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning account of the Constitutional Convention, has said they "really had no good idea how the system would work." 

We do: Not that well. We tolerate this mechanism only because it almost always yields the same result as the popular vote. If it often did the opposite, it would be scrapped. But why run the risk every four years? 

If the formula behind the Electoral College were so inspired, we'd apply it elsewhere. But in other elections, from the U.S. Senate to county coroner, we take it for granted that whoever gets the most votes from individual citizens wins. 

Getting rid of it would strengthen democracy and eliminate a perverse anomaly identified by one victim. "You win some, you lose some," Al Gore said. "And then there's that little-known third category." 

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

177 responses to “Why Would Cruz Insult New Yorkers? Thank the Electoral College.

  1. Under the assumption that we elect wise rulers whose only interest is the good functioning of the state, along with equality and democracy, then you would expect the government to immediately reform the electoral college system.

    Under the assumption that we elect primarily self-interested rulers who care mainly only for themselves, intent on preserving their own power by preserving the status quo, then you would expect them to never reform the electoral college system.

    Guess which one is happening right now.

    1. Glen Beck makes me laugh at his own stupidity. Him endorsing Cruz is an exercise in how the GOP will lose a third presidency in a row if Cruz is nominated.

      Cruz is too much of an evangelical to win the presidency in America 2016. As is Santorum, Huckabee, Carson and ANY candidate wanting to continue the Hate Movement of The Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs.

      All you are doing with these wars is sending people in droves over to the socialists. Your offspring for generations to come will be living the life of the1950s Russians and you don’t care because the Cloud-in-the-Sky told you to. You believe that same cloud is going to come down here make everything all right.

      Stupid is as stupid does.

      1. Lots of people ID as evangelicals, and many of them have been President.

        Also, there is no “war on women”, though the GOP does often war on gays and drugs, to their own destruction. But more to the point, they appear to have capitulated on the gay issue and most want a form of “federalism” on MJ.

        But Cruz is definitely not “my guy”. I think I’ll vote for any person I think would actually shrink government (in real terms). So, it looks unlikely that would be Cruz, but I may be wrong. His own party might be just as afraid of him as the Dems. He may just veto stupid spending bills. He also may not, I don’t know.

        1. ace — You say the following:

          “Lots of people ID as evangelicals, and many of them have been President.”

          I say so what? Socialism is sweeping the country and the party either adjusts to allow other people to live their own lives and let other people live theirs or Socialism will dominate us. And Communism is just a short slide down that slippery slope away.

          And you continue with:

          ” Also, there is no “war on women”

          How in the hell can you say that? The GOP hasn’t won the female vote in a presidential election since 1988. Women are not going to vote for any person who comes out as anti-abortion. Women are sick and tired of old white men, for the most part, telling them what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

          YOU ARE IN SERIOUS DENIAL.

          You continue with:

          “I think I’ll vote for any person I think would actually shrink government (in real terms).”

          Forget that “shrinking government” talk for the time being. What you and everybody else need to be concerned with is getting the country back on the right track. And that means running the country like a business. Trump is the ONLY candidate with a proven track record in this area.

          Have I straightened you out?

          1. There are enough socialists at this point that we will likely have to get rid of them to save the country.

          2. I honor, cherish, and respect women and I am very grateful for their contributions to humankind with their role of giving birth. I believe that performing abortions is evil in almost every circumstance (there are a few extenuating circumstances that could justify it). I am against fathers who urge the mother to get an abortion. I am against planned parenthood counselors who recommend abortions, and I am against the doctors who perform the abortions just as much as I am against the mothers who choose to get an abortion.

            I don’t understand how this position equates to a war on women since every woman I know holds about the same position. My wife, my sisters, my mother, my aunts, my sisters-in-law, my cousins, all the women I know in my church congregation, etc. Most of them are more vocally opposed to abortion than I am. Why are they so eager to wage this war against their own gender?

            You should step back and call it what it is. If you want to call it a war on abortion, most people would accept that.

          3. Wow, you’re even worse off than I’d imagined.

            Many people are evangelical. Many have won the Presidency. That has little to do with massive government (what you call “socialism”). But your friend here, Trump, loves big government.

            Also, just because many people think there’s a “war on women” doesn’t make it true. Secondly, I tell no-one what to do with their bodies EXCEPT that they may not aggress against another with them.

            But please, tell me again how the serially bankrupt Trump will “save us” from the big government socialists by being a big government nationalist.

    2. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes ? 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      It would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

      Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

      The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes?270 of 538.
      All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)?thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

      http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

      1. No Republican states have signed on to the NPV.
        Republicans respect the Constitution and NPV is a back-door way to subvert it.
        If you don’t like the EC, amend the Constitution to eliminate it.
        Don’t forget, implementing the NPV, without Congressional approval, would be a violation if Article 1, Section 10: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,… enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,…” Which the NPV would be.
        If it were to be implemented and you don’t live in a large urban area, get used to the idea that you won’t see any presidential candidates, either. That’s why the Framers put the EC into use, so campaigns would have more of a reason to spread out their activities and not concentrate where voters are clumped together in a small area.

        1. Implementing the NPV without amending the constitution is treason.

          1. Current and past presidential candidates with a public record of support for the National Popular Vote bill: Congressman John Anderson (R, I ?ILL), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D?VT), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R?GA), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R?TN).

        2. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9),

          On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28?18 margin.

          The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressman John Buchanan (R?Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R?Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R?Utah). Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R?TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R?IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R?GA)

          Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. ? America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

        3. 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.

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

          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.

        4. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that ‘encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States [U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, 1978].’ Because the choice of method of appointing presidential Electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, there is no encroachment on federal authority.

          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.”

          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”

          Thus, under established compact jurisprudence, congressional consent would not be necessary for the National Popular Vote compact to become effective.

          Nonetheless, National Popular Vote is working to obtain support for the compact in Congress.

        5. With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

          The predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

          The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.

          Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

          38 states were ignored.

          24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. 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.

          Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion.

          1. With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

            1/6 of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

            1/6 lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

            The remaining 4/6 live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.

            A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention?roughly in proportion to their population.

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

        6. Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates campaigning and winning only in big cities.

        7. I dont want states to do this, but if more than one (which is already the case) agree without secret or written agreement to collude to break some law, than they aren’t breaking the law. This would be like tax avoidance rather than evasion.

          I hope we can hold off on this, though, for two reasons. For those unfamiliar with the Constitutional debate over the Electoral College, the big Dem urban vote would swamp the suburbanite and rural Red and much fewer Red urban votes. The only reason Dem organizers are pushing this is for Dem political victory. The Constitutional reason to object is that our Founders wanted to prevent the larger States from making the smaller States insignificant in national influence. It forces national politicians to compete in smaller States, rather than blowing them off.

          I think that’s a good thing, and I also don’t want the urban drone vote fo the Dems to swamp the suburban, rural and smaller Urban Repub vote.

          1. States enacting the National Popular Vote bill are not breaking any law. They are replacing their state winner-take-all laws using their exclusive constitutional authority to do so.

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

            One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

            One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

            The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.

          2. Support for a national popular vote is strong among Rep, Dem, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
            Most Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

            In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states were politically irrelevant after the conventions. 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.

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

            Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Rep or Dem 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

            Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

            Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among
            Rep, Dem, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

            Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

      2. 1 There are millions in New York State who understand Cruz was not criticizing their values. They also know their values matter very little as the state is dominated by certain large population centers. Much like their compatriots in Pennsylvania they are all but politically irrelevant.

        Doing away with the electoral college would bring similar effects to the entire nation. Which is why only leftists support it.

        1. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

          The National Popular Vote bill would replace 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 later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states

          The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

          Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

          The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes?270 of 538.
          All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)?thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

        2. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in AR (6), ME (4), MI (16), NV (6), NM (5), NC (15), and OK (7), and both houses in CO (9),

          The Oklahoma Senate passed it by a 28?18 margin.

          The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressman John Buchanan (R?Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R?Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R?Utah). Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R?TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R?IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R?GA)

          Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. ? America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

          When every voter 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 VT or WY, or for a Republican to try it in WY or VT.

  2. Reason, is definitely the site I go to to hear opinions that are similar to mine… what I can’t understand, for the life of me, is why they can never seem to talk about things that are remotely relevant.
    I mean let’s be honest the only reason I’m sticking around is the Mexicans, ganja, and gay stuff.

    1. Don’t forget the deep-dish pizza

  3. God forbid we have states like Maine and Nebraska who have found work arounds. That federalism thing was a nifty idea huh?

    1. Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide

      77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

      Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

      If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less 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. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.

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

      http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

      1. Well, we couldn’t have a system that uses House districts, could we? That might be like a republican (small “r”) form of choosing the president. Your best argument is that the demoncraps would lose?
        NPV would give large cities a greater influence, since less money would have to be spent to advertise and campaign, there.
        NPV is a demoncrap scheme and unconstitutional.

        1. Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . 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 equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

          After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015.

          77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

          If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system.

        2. 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.

          One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

          One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

          The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.

        3. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
          “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 a state’s electoral votes.

          As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method? a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

  4. And they claim this is a Libertarian rag! How they square that circle with Chapman regularly featured is never explained. Oh, that’s right, Nick.

  5. Why insult New Yorkers? Some of the sweetest, most amiable people on the planet. You never see New Yorkers being rude to anyone, do you?

  6. The problem with the Electoral College IS the winner-take-all crap. Doesn’t matter what the percentages are, whoever wins suddenly gets unanimous support from that state. It’s delegation without representation.

    A Constitutional Amendment outlawing winner-take-all in the Electoral College would go a long way. But of course anything affecting the powertrip of the politicians won’t get anywhere in Congress these days.

    1. Some states do this now, correct? I think I agree with you on this.

    2. The constitution says that each state has a set number of electors, based on their population. The states are free to decide to allocate those electors.

      I’d be in favor of hving to win each congressional district, with the two state wide votes (representing senators) going to the candidate with the most popular votes. Maine and Nebraska do this.

      1. 77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

        Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

        If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less 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. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.

        Nationwide, there are now only 10 “battleground” districts that are expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election.

        The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state.

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

        1. There is a reason that there is only ONE example (Costa Rica) of a country with a popularly-elected presidential system that is older than about 50 years old or so and still ‘democratic’ or representative. Because that sort of system is conducive only to dictatorship. It ends up eliminating all separation of powers and all checks-and-balances. The legislative branch becomes a mere show – and in practice loses even its ability to remove the President via impeachment. And in the end, the incumbent President is always able to accumulate enough power to eliminate competitive elections.

          Costa Rica has maintained itself as an exception because a)Presidents were not allowed to be re-elected until recently and b)they have no military so the Prez is not also Commander-in-Chief and c)they also elect two vice-presidents so that executive power is itself split.

          Your ‘national popular vote’ is a typically majoritarian bunch of crap.

          1. National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. This bill does not eliminate the Electoral College.

            Electing a chief executive is not conducive to dictatorship. It does not end up eliminating all separation of powers and all checks-and-balances. The legislative branch does not become a mere show – and does not in practice lose its ability to remove the President via impeachment. In the end, the incumbent President is not always able to accumulate enough power to eliminate competitive elections.

            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.

            1. “This bill does not eliminate the Electoral College.”
              No, but it alters the way it was intended to work, so that even a unanimous vote, for a particular candidate in a state, could require that all EC electors vote the opposite way, if the national popular vote so decreed.
              That’s the way it works – every state that implemented the NPV would have to commit all of its EC votes to the candidate that won the national popular vote – you know, two wolves and one lamb casting ballots on what’s for dinner.

              1. There was no intended way for it to work.

                The Founders left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
                “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.”

                A majority of 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.

                In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
                ? appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
                ? appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
                ? popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
                ? popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
                ? popular election using multi-member regional districts,
                ? combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
                ? appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
                ? statewide popular election.

              2. “The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
                – Vikram David Amar- – professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

              3. 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 candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

                Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

                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.

                #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?”

                #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
                SD — 75% for #1, 67% for #2.
                CT — 74% for #1, 68% for #2,
                UT — 70% for #1, 66% for #2,

          2. Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, CT, MA, NH, and RI conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

            Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

            The U.S. would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current 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 each separate state), under a district system such as used by Maine and Nebraska, or under the proposed national popular vote system in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

          3. 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.

            National Popular Vote’s Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R?UT),and David Durenberger (R?MN); and former Congressman John Buchanan (R?AL). Other supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R?TN), Gov. Jim Edgar (R?IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Gov. Howard Dean (D?VT), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R?GA).

            Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. ? America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

            1. It doesn’t matter one whit how many well-known idiots you can muster as supporters. You have not even attempted to address the REALITY that the only country that does what you are advocating with any sustained ‘success’ is Costa Rica – and their situation is obviously completely different than the situation here. Otherwise, your only exemplars are places like Iran/Brazil/Argentina/Russia/etc. Hardly good governance models.

              The reality is that the presidential system itself is fraught with tendencies towards centralization of power. Even with our existing checks/controls, the growth of the Imperial Pesidency and the executive branch in the US over the last century should be disturbing. And you want even MORE ability for a charismatic manipulator ‘of the needs and hopes of everyone’ (read – clinical sociopath) to be elected?

              Ya sure ya betcha. What could possibly go wrong?

              1. The National Popular Vote compact does not abolish the office of presidential elector or the Electoral College. Thus, there would be no change in whatever protection the current Electoral College system might provide in terms of preventing a demagogue from coming to power in the United States. However, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent a demagogue from being elected President of the United States, regardless of whether presidential electors are elected on the basis of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule or the nationwide popular vote

                1. The current system absolutely DOES prevent the worst sort of demagoguery. It is a snap for a candidate to demagogue a particular state where they are already popular – to get them from 60% of the vote to say 80%. All of those votes are meaningless in the current system because – the election is already WON there. The current system forces the candidate to move on from there once they’ve won there – to a place where they AREN’T as popular.

                  It is MUCH more difficult for a candidate to also then demagogue a state that is wary of the candidate (often because they already think they are gonna be paying for the promises the candidate made to win in his home base state).

                  The Electoral College as constituted is IMO the only reason the US hasn’t (yet) fallen into the political divisions elsewhere between overt socialism and overt fascism. Our rhetoric here is certainly poisonous – but the reality is that we may be the only country on Earth where there really is almost no practical substantive difference between the two main parties. That is the reason for our stability as a country. It sure as hell ain’t because voters here are smarter or more pragmatic or more centrist or more stability-seeking than anywhere else.

                  1. Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.

                    From 1992- 2012
                    13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
                    19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

                    If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
                    Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
                    If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

                    Population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided “battleground” states.
                    There do not appear to be any Democratic states making the transition to voting Republican in presidential races.

                    Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
                    ? 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
                    ? 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
                    ? 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
                    ? 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
                    ? 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
                    ? 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

                  2. 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 current system punishes third-party candidates whose support is broadly based.

              2. The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes?1%, 2%, or 3%.

                The only states that received any attention in the 2012 general election campaign for President were states within 3% of the national outcome.

                The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.
                Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

                Analysts concluded months ago that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion.

                1. If you want YOUR state to have competitive elections, then maybe you should try to make YOUR state have competitive elections. No one else in the country gives a rats damn whether the Reps can get extra votes in UT – or the Dems in MA. That doesn’t add one scintilla of value. Nor do most people (that includes the pols too) have much respect for ‘the individual voter’ in all those states where ‘competitive elections’ are as meaningless as in any other one-party dictatorship. Who cares how loud the sheep there can Baaah?

                  The Electoral College simply means that the Presidential election is actually 50 different simultaneous elections. Deal with it. There is ZERO value in ‘overwinning’ any of those elections in hopes that the sheep can cram their Baaahing down the throats of everyone who disagrees. And ultimately the victory ends up being decided in those states that are the most skeptical of BOTH candidates. DEAL WITH IT.

                  1. 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).

                    Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

                    Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.

                    The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

                  2. 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. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

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

                    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution.
                    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

                    Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    3. There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College – more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
      A constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

      Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
      “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.”

      By state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

      The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes ? 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

      1. You already posted that entire, exact response above.

        Look for a new page in your script, or even attempt extemporaneous thought.

      2. Yes, but the Framers, also intended that there be one Representative district for each 50,000 people.
        Right! That would mean we would have more than 6,400 electors, and there are many who believe this first entry to the Bill of Rights was, in fact, ratified.
        See: http://www.boldtruth.com/

  7. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  8. The comment about “New York Values” is only an insult if you think New Yorkers have bad values.

  9. The federal election isn’t intended to be strictly democratic, as per the Federalist. The reasoning is to afford greater equality to the states as political entities by applying the principle of contained, dislocated mass, to borrow an analogy by Isabel Paterson.

    Good idea? Maybe, maybe not. But consider this Chapman quote:

    “If the formula behind the Electoral College were so inspired, we’d apply it elsewhere. But in other elections, from the U.S. Senate to county coroner, we take it for granted that whoever gets the most votes from individual citizens wins.”

    Well, none of those elections are by a citizenry as massive and dislocated as the general U.S. population. So… even if Chapman disagrees with that rationale, why doesn’t he know about it?

    But I answered myself the minute I wrote “Chapman.” Since when does his knowing the principle behind a thing inform his reason for opposing or advocating it?

    1. Not to mention that the Founders never intended for U.S. Senators to be voted on by the masses.

    2. and virtually all state and local elections are winner takes all within a district. For president, the districts are usually the states instead of the country as a whole.

      Without the Electoral College, Cruz would be doing everything to kiss ass in New York and Los Angleles, and being that they are liberal havens (democrats like to self congregate) all the moderates and conservatives in fly over country would be ignored.

      1. “Without the Electoral College, Cruz would be doing everything to kiss ass in New York and Los Angleles”

        I’m not sure you are explaining yourself as clearly as you would like to. Without the Electoral College, a vote from New York would have the same weight as a vote from a rural state. Given that, why would not having an Electoral College encourage a candidate concentrate to get New York votes?

        1. Advertising to an area that has thousands per square mile is much more effective than to one that has only a few, not to mention gathering an audience for a speaking engagement.

          1. “Advertising…”

            You of course mean advertising in print, radio, television and other 20th century forms of media. Today we have other means of communication.

            From the little I’ve seen of political advertising, it is shrill and mind-numbingly moronic. If living in the countryside means less exposure to it, all the better for country living. But it does have its drawbacks such as isolation. In any case, it’s up to the country resident to keep herself informed on politics. It’s not up to you or me or the candidate. It’s an individual responsibility. If a rural resident feels ignored by a particular candidate who spends all his time and money in New York City, she has the option of voting for another candidate. That lost vote is worth exactly the same as a vote gained in NYC.

          2. 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.

      2. A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention?roughly in proportion to their population.

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

        With National Popular Vote, when every voter 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.

        1. No it wouldn’t. A ‘national popular vote’ would be a purely wholesale election. While Cruz can demonize “New Yorkers” in the current system, a ‘national popular vote’ would demonize some other individual minority – hillbillies, rednecks, Jews, blacks, illegals, religiouswackos, gunnuts, taxevaders, pickyourscapegoat.

          There would be no reason for a candidate to ever ‘do retail politics’ since it simply does not ever pay on a national level. Hence no ability for anyone outside the organizational bubble to judge the candidate face-to-face and separate the spin from the candidate.

          Big donors who have the money to pay for the wholesale electioneering would have massively more power behind the scenes than currently.

          The incentives to commit fraud move to the places where fraud is more difficult to uncover (the candidates home base) because an extra vote in those places (ie no competitive election) would mean as much as a vote in a place where there is extra scrutiny of whats happening (ie a competitive election). This was the MO even with Gore in Florida. He went to his voter bases in Florida to ‘get the extra votes’ he needed. He actually opposed a statewide recount there. The only reason voter fraud is so low right now is precisely BECAUSE the electoral college forces the election to be competitive at some specific places at different times in unpredictable ways (but always outside the candidates home base).

          1. In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

            The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

            In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention?roughly in proportion to their population.

            Presidential candidates currently do everything within their power to raise as much money as they possibly can from donors throughout the country. They then allocate their time and the money that they raise nationally to places where it will do the most good toward their goal of winning the election.

            The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.
            Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
            There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

            If every voter mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would reallocate their time and the money they raise.

          2. With the current system, a small number of people in a closely divided “battleground” state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes. Months before elections campaigns know the handful of swing states.

            537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

            The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, 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.

      3. I don’t see how being ignored is a bad thing when the Feds shut down half the city because some bigwig is coming to campaign.

        1. 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.

          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.

          In 2004: The Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost 2 years. It only polled in the then 18 battleground states.

          In 2008 more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the presidential campaign, Ari Fleischer said:
          “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

          “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

          Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in LA, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in FL (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached FL’s shores, after it had first reached LA. 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.

        2. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

    3. The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

      In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in them, 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.

      Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
      “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors?.”

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

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country

      1. Look, we get it.
        NPV would make demoncrap wins more likely, that’s why it has only been approved in demoncrap states.
        It is contrary to the Constitution – why don’t you change that and stop trying to skirt the clear provisions of our founding document?

        1. The Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

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

          By state laws, states can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

        2. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in AR(6), ME(4), MI(16), NV(6), NM(5), NC(15), and OK(7), and both houses in CO(9),

          The OK Senate passed it by a 28?18 margin.

          The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressman John Buchanan (R?AL), and former Senators David Durenberger (R?MN), and Jake Garn (R?UT). Supporters include former Sen. Fred Thompson (R?TN), Gov. Jim Edgar (R?IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R?GA)

          Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. ? America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

          Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

  10. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  11. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  12. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  13. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  14. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  15. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  16. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  17. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  18. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  19. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  20. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  21. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  22. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  23. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

    1. Twelve spams in a row? Now I’m interested!

  24. Direct election of the President would just mean large population pools on the coasts would control the rest of the vast expanse of space between. So instead of one party ignoring a state they can’t win, both parties would ignore most of the country, great idea.

    It’s always interesting to see the electoral map by county and see the winner have tiny specs where the cities are and the rest of the actual land area go to the loser.

    1. Why exactly is that interesting?

    2. Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

      The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.
      Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
      There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

      The predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

      The candidate with the most votes (not acreage) wins in virtually every other election in the country.

      1. Get over your butt-hurt from 2000.
        The system works well enough without underhanded ways to get around it.

        1. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9),

          On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28?18 margin.

          The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressman John Buchanan (R?Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R?Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R?Utah). Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R?TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R?IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R?GA)

          Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. ? America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

      2. Let’s discuss how your proposal would affect the detection and implementation of voter fraud.

        Assuming that you are right, there will be only around 10 battleground States and; therefore, only ten areas where voter fraud could affect the results of the Election.

        1). Detection is easier because of the limited number of votes that would have to be reviewed.

        2). Implementation would be harder due to the fact that, by definition, in a battleground State the political systems is not controlled by one Party.

        1. Only the 2016 party winner in 7 states — Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) — is not a foregone conclusion.

          The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, 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.

          Of Course it isn’t as difficult to change the outcome in a battleground state. It only took 537 votes in one battleground state in 2000 to determine the election, despite a nationwide lead of over 537,000 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?

  25. While the electoral college has its problems, direct election of the president would be a terrible idea. The end result would be to dial up the “MOAR FREE SHIT” and the identity politics to 11. Besides, democracy if two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner.

    1. ^This. Why do we assume that democracy will cure all our ills? A tyranny of the majority is not necessarily better than a tyranny of one. What we need is limited government. Unfortunately, the totalitarian, busy-body tendency in humanity always seems to find its way back to the mainstream.

      1. “What we need is limited government.”

        With that attitude, you’re not going to get it. “We need to limit government,” is more like it. As long as you expect unnamed others to limit your government, it’s just not going to happen.

        1. You reminded me of that ancient Chinese farmer standing on a hilltop with his mouth open. Asked what he was up to, he said “I need to be fed!” A thoughtful bird was bound to come and fly into his waiting mouth.

    2. A constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

      Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes would not make us a pure democracy.
      Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

      Popular election of the chief executive would not make us a democracy.

  26. Sure, let’s get rid of the electoral college and further erode state boundaries until they are utterly meaningless. Lest we forget that the President of the United States is, in fact, president of the States, not the people of said States. So the States elect the president of the States.

    1. In 2012, 80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election.

      More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the then only ten competitive states. Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). 38 states were politically irrelevant. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

      Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

      Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

      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

      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.

      “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

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

      Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter 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 all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

      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.

      Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. 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, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

  27. Is Steve Chapman always a schmuck, or just in this article?

    1. Most of the time. I started to say all of the time, but I often skip his articles. So I can’t say he’s bad in every case, just usually.

  28. Steve,
    F.Y.I.- This is a Republic, not a democracy. /the more you know…

    1. A constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

      Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes would not make us a pure democracy.
      Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

      Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

  29. I make $82h while I’m traveling the world. Last week I worked by my laptop in Rome, Monti Carlo and finally Paris?This week I’m back in the USA. All I do are easy tasks from this one cool site. check it out,

    —————– http://www.richi8.com

  30. Would you really want to give New York and California politics greater weight in the federal government with all the nanny statism that implies?…Oh, wait it is Chapman, never mind.

    1. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

      In 2012, more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the then only ten competitive states. Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). 38 states were politically irrelevant. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

      Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

      Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

      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.

      “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

  31. I suspect Chapman, as with most of the lamestream media, hopes people will conflate New York City with the State of New York, but I think even people in Binghamton and Buffalo realize that Cruz is speaking about New York *City* values. These neoliberal, collectivist attitudes, as personified in Bloomberg, Cuomo, Schumer, & Trump, are not representative of the state as a whole. This is illustrated by the massive non-compliance with SAFE Act firearm registration requirements by New York gun owners.

  32. “but I think even people in Binghamton and Buffalo realize that Cruz is speaking about New York *City* values”

    Reminds me of the time the Rolling Stones played in Buffalo. Mick: “Hello to everyone from New York…. *City*,” as he opened the show.

  33. Another week, another retarded Chapman article. The Electoral College was never intended to protect small states. It was intended to protect rural states. And why don’t we have this system applied elsewhere? Ummm…we do. Try Googling “United States Senate” sometime, Steve.

    The only way you could make direct popular vote work is to radically decentralize federal power. Otherwise, you wind up with rural populations essentially under the thumb of permanent urban/suburban majorities. Maybe Chapman likes that idea. I don’t see why a libertarian, on the other hand, should.

    1. 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. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

      Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S, Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.com which were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA – 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA – 75%, NE – 67%, MN – 75%, IL (enacted), NC – 74%, WI – 71%, and FL – 78%.

      Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural and agricultural states

      One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

      One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

      The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.

    2. Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidents being under the thumb of permanent urban/suburban majorities.

      With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

  34. There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College – more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

    Instead, by state laws, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes?270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)?thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes ? 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    1. Every vote is relevant. If you’re concerned about your state not getting enough advertising and attention, why not try to make your state more competitive in the political market?

      This sounds like the effects of everyone shopping at the same place. “But now S-Mart takes our patronage for granted!” So switch to L-Mart down the street. S-Mart will have to pay attention if enough of you do it.

      1. Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable.

        From 1992- 2012
        13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
        19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

        If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
        Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
        If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

        Population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided “battleground” states.
        There do not appear to be any Democratic states making the transition to voting Republican in presidential races.

        Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
        ? 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
        ? 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
        ? 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
        ? 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
        ? 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
        ? 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

      2. In 2012, 80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election.

        In 2012, more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the then only ten competitive states. Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). 38 states were politically irrelevant. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

        Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

        Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

        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

        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.

        “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

      3. As in every other election in the country, no Americans should have to move or change their vote to be politically relevant and equal.
        .

        1. Blah, blah, blah.
          Would you still be for it if it meant Republicans would win more often?
          Honestly?

          1. She’s pushing this shit so hard, I wonder if she helped write the fucking thing.

          2. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

            Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
            Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

  35. Of course every vote is not relevant in the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes.

    Minority party voters in each state have their votes counted only for the presidential candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

    And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don’t matter to presidential candidates.

    The only states that received any attention in the 2012 general election campaign for President were states within 3% of the national outcome.

    Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

    Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

  36. This article is just silly.

    The Electoral College is simply a means of slightly enhancing the power of the smaller states when it comes to selecting a Chief Executive. In that regard it is similar to the bicameral federal legislature, in which every state gets exactly the same number of senators (two). There is nothing in the Constitution which mandates the “winner-take-all” rule for allocating Electoral College votes. States can (and have) adopted different allocation rules. Why should every state be forced to follow the same process? If you don’t like the rule, petition your state to change its own rule. That’s how federalism works.

    The real problem is not with the Electoral College, but with the complete change in the manner in which the Chief Executive is selected. Under the original constitutional scheme the states, as sovereign political entities, selected him. The EC system is perfect for that. Unfortunately, we have changed the process into a national popularity contest. Of course, there is nothing in the Constitution which mandates that, either; any state could go back to the original selection method for its own electors. And all should.

    1. 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

      Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

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

      Candidates play mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida. Elections are about winning a handful of battleground states.

      State 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 campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

      1. The election is about winning the battleground states because of the winner-take-all awarding of electors. California is going all-Democrat and Texas is going all-Republican, but if there were a handful of electors in each state the other party could capture, then candidates would be forced to pay attention to non-battleground states, too.

        1. In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
          In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
          77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President

          In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
          In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
          74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President

        2. Any state that enacts a proportional method on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused CO voters to agree with Rep. Gov. Owens and to reject this proposal in 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

          The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes?1%, 2%, or 3%. As a matter of practical politics, only one electoral vote would be in play in almost all states. A system that requires even a 9% share of the popular vote in order to win one electoral vote is fundamentally out of sync with the small-percentage vote shifts that are involved in real-world presidential campaigns.

          If a current battleground state, like Colorado, were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

          If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

          1. Yes that is true about Colorado. But the real question is why do NON-battleground states refuse to ‘go proportional’? Why are CA/NY/TX so interested in disenfranchising 49% of their own voters and ensuring that they have zero importance? And since they are so disinterested in their own losing minority, why should any other state give a damn about increasing the influence of their majority? The reason those three states (among other one-party states) are ‘unimportant’ to campaigns is precisely BECAUSE they are winner-take-all and there is no confusion about the results of the election there.

            1. Every non-battleground state has an easy opportunity to make itself a battleground – and be ‘important’. They ALL choose not to do that. They ALL choose instead to simply try to cram their lack of competitiveness on everyone else.

              1. Every state can be politically relevant when the National Popular Vote bill goes into effect.

                The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes ? 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

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

            2. Because in most states only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

              The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes?1%, 2%, or 3%. As a matter of practical politics, only one electoral vote would be in play in almost all states. A system that requires even a 9% share of the popular vote in order to win one electoral vote is fundamentally out of sync with the small-percentage vote shifts that are involved in real-world presidential campaigns.

              Candidates would not bother to campaign for 1 possible vote.

              Awarding electoral votes by a proportional method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, the reform dramatically increases incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

              For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . .

              1. If a big currently non-competitive state decided to go proportional, then every district in that state could potentially be of interest in an election. The only districts that would be ignored are the districts that are currently gerrymandered. Which is a big freaking problem in big states – but that is an entirely different problem than ‘presidential election results’.

                The reason the big one-party states want NPV rather than just ‘go proportional ourselves’ is because they want to keep everything gerrymandered within their state – and they want to continue to focus their own efforts on throwing red meat to their base to GOTV inside their most gerrymandered districts. And if you don’t understand what’s actually happening, then you are just a party whore or a useful idiot for some party.

            3. if the whole-number proportional approach were adopted nationwide,
              ? it would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
              ? it would not improve upon the current situation in which 4 out of 5 states and 4 out of 5 voters in the country are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and
              ? it would not make every vote equal.

              The proportional method also easily could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of 270 electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

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

              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

              1. The proportional system won’t be adopted nationwide. ‘Battleground’ states should prefer winner-take-all. ‘Non-battleground’ states should prefer proportional. And if they switch back and forth every decade or two, well good for them. That means they are successfully creating competitive elections within their own state.

                I understand that YOU are interested in cramming down a permanent one-size-fits-all ‘solution’ on everybody. But that is because you are a totalitarian nutjob who actually thinks that Stalin/Saddam were wildly popular because they won the popular vote.

                1. Closely divided states using the state-by-state winner-take-all method would still be THE battleground states where most of campaign resources would be concentrated.

                  Candidates would not bother to campaign in most states that switched to a proportional method for the usually only 1 electoral vote that might be in play.

                  The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes?1%, 2%, or 3%. As a matter of practical politics, only one electoral vote would be in play in almost all states. A system that requires even a 9% share of the popular vote in order to win one electoral vote is fundamentally out of sync with the small-percentage vote shifts that are involved in real-world presidential campaigns.

                2. The list of battleground states under the whole-number proportional approach might consist of New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, Kentucky, Missouri, Georgia, Utah, Colorado, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

                  The biggest states switching to a proportional method would be more likely mathematically to be battleground states under the whole-number proportional approach, because the share of the popular vote corresponding to one electoral vote is smaller for large states. But changing the statewide percentage of the popular vote in a large state is far more costly (in terms of campaigning time, advertising, and organizational efforts) than generating the same percentage change in a small state. Thus, in practice, the largest of the battleground states would, almost certainly, receive less attention because they would offer far less “bang for the buck” to the campaign managers who are responsible for prudently allocating limited resources.

                3. The list of battleground states under the whole-number proportional approach might consist of New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, Kentucky, Missouri, Georgia, Utah, Colorado, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

                  The biggest states switching to a proportional method would be more likely mathematically to be battleground states under the whole-number proportional approach, because the share of the popular vote corresponding to one electoral vote is smaller for large states. But changing the statewide percentage of the popular vote in a large state is far more costly (in terms of campaigning time, advertising, and organizational efforts) than generating the same percentage change in a small state. Thus, in practice, the largest of the battleground states would, almost certainly, receive less attention because they would offer far less “bang for the buck” to the campaign managers who are responsible for prudently allocating limited resources.

                4. From 1992- 2012
                  13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
                  19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

                  Some states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
                  ? 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
                  ? 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
                  ? 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
                  ? 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
                  ? 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
                  ? 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

                5. The National Popular Vote bill would create competitive elections in every state in every presidential election.

                  It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

                  Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

                  National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences.

                  Most Americans don’t ultimately care how their presidential candidate does 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 equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    2. 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. 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.

      The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

      Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later 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.

      Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

      Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

    3. There was no one “original selection method”

      In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
      ? appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
      ? appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
      ? popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
      ? popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
      ? popular election using congressional districts,
      ? popular election using multi-member regional districts,
      ? combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
      ? appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
      ? statewide popular election.

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

      1. Is George Soros paying you to do all this cut-and-pasting or are you just that rabid for more demoncrap presidents?
        Judging by the last one we got/have, that is a recipe for disaster.

  37. So Steve is looking to over the Republic?

  38. An article on the difference between the popular vote adn the electoral vote, and why we should favor the former, but no mention of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? Seems a bit shoddy.

    The idea is that every state in the compact would put their electoral votes behind whatever candidate gets the popular vote. The catch is that the compact doesn’t kick-in until enough states sign-on to decide the election (so enough states to get the 270 EV necessary to win the election).

    So far 11 states (worth 165 electoral votes) have signed on. Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont, California, Rhode Island and New York. Not surprisingly, no “red” states have signed on yet. It’s almost like they remember which way things went last time the electoral vote and popular vote didn’t line up.

    1. From 1992- 2012
      13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
      19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

      If this 20 year pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
      Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
      If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

      After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that “Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College.”

      On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28?18 margin.

      The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9),

    2. Wokay… after seeing how much Susan Anthony has spoken on this, I regret saying anything. Still, seems odd for the article itself not to mention it.

    3. There’s another catch: Article 1 Section 10:”No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,…”

      1. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that ‘encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States [U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, 1978].’ Because the choice of method of appointing presidential Electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, there is no encroachment on federal authority.

        Thus, under established compact jurisprudence, congressional consent would not be necessary for the National Popular Vote compact to become effective.

        Nonetheless, National Popular Vote is working to obtain support for the compact in Congress.

  39. The National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections. It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter 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 all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

    The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
    National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy.
    Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all 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.

  40. i think it’s less complex than that. true, he has no hope of winning new york state, but it’s a dog whistle to conservatives. he took trump’s own words and reminded people of who he was and donald really is. and because he had spent all his time kissing trumps ass until then, he had the credibility to do it. if only nixon could go to china, only cruz could do this. i disagree with the experts who say trump won that round at the debate.

  41. Why Would Cruz Insult New Yorkers?

    Because it’s fun.

    1. How come we didn’t see a: “You know who else insulted New York?”

  42. How about we talk about something we can do about making our votes more relevant, like voter id, etc? Shouldn’t issues like precincts voting 100% for candidates or more votes in precincts than eligible voters be more worthy of our attention and more easily (maybe) dealt with than the Electoral College?

  43. If you’re in Boston, Nashville or Phoenix, you have as much chance of seeing a presidential candidate in person as you have of shooting pool with the Dalai Lama.

    And this is a bad thing precisely…how?

    .
    I’ll admit that for those of us residing in “done-deal” states, there’s hardly even the illusion of electoral efficacy. In my cyanotically “blue” polity, the National Socialst Democrat American Party (NSDAP) could put Jerry Sandusky at the top of their ticket and run him from his prison cell, and all 14 of the Garden State’s electoral votes would go to him with the reliability of a dog returning to its vomit.

    .
    Not that a convicted child molester wouldn’t make a far more trustworthy POTUS than might Hitlery.

  44. The problem with trying to get rid of the Electoral College is that, to do it properly, a constitutional amendment would be needed, requiring approval of 3/4 of the states. And the small states will never approve such an amendment, since it would diminish their power. That’s why the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was devised as a workaround. But if it is truly a compact between states, it will never pass either, because compacts have to be approved by both houses of Congress, and the Senate will never approve this, because Senators from the small states will oppose it. But if is regarded as not being an actual “compact”, but simply a set of commitments from individual states to alter the way they allocate their electoral votes, it could pass.

    The problem then would be making sure that the national popular vote data, on which the electoral votes of the participating states would be based, would be available. Is there anything that requires that all states actually make public their popular vote totals? Certainly nothing in the Constitution – it doesn’t require that presidential elections even be held in all states. The Voting Rights Act of 1965? Maybe. But if one of the smaller states decided to frustrate the process by not publishing its popular vote totals, it would wreak havoc. Would any state actually do such a thing? I don’t know.

    1. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to get rid of the Electoral College.

      The Founding Fathers left the choice of method of awarding electoral votes exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
      “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors?.”

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

      Because the choice of method of appointing presidential Electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, there is no encroachment on federal authority. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that ‘encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States [U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, 1978].

      All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)?thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

      1. That law would open up a whole new set of problems.

        When the national popular vote is heavily influenced by large cities and dense urban areas, the smaller, less dense rural areas are going to feel slighted. You’ve have NYC, LA, and Chicago deciding who gets to be president.

        While not perfect, a divided elector assignment based on districts would at least mean the one or two districts (yes, with only one or two electors) would be in play. Once part of every state is in play, the election becomes more about the concerns of the nation as a whole, not just the concerns of Ohio or Virginia.

        1. Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states

          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. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

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

          One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
          The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

          One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

          The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.

        2. Nationwide, there are now only 10 “battleground” districts that are expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally

          The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state.

          In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, in 2012, the whole state was ignored.
          77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President

          In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
          In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
          74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President

    2. In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. 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.

      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

      Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    3. Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.

      If any state did not make their popular vote total public, they would not be able to award their electoral votes, and their popular votes would not be included in the national popular vote total. The lack of totals from any state(s) would not stop the compacting states from using the official totals of the reporting states to determine the winner of the national popular vote.

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

      Note:
      Article II of the National Popular Vote bill:
      “Right of the People in Member States to Vote for President and Vice President”
      Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States.

  45. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  46. It’s not the Electoral College that’s he problem, it’s the winner-take-all approach most states use to award electors.

    The Electoral College ensures that smaller, less populated states are not ignored in the election process. We don’t want to be France where farmers had to drive their tractors to Paris and snarl traffic in order to have their concerns heard.

    Awarding all the electors to the winner of the state-wide popular vote means candidates who don’t stand a chance to win the state (e.g., Republicans in California) will ignore that state and candidates who are virtually guaranteed to win that state (e.g., Democrats in California) will take it for granted and use it as a campaign ATM.

    1. In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. 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.

      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).

      The 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

      The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

  47. All arguments against the EC hinge on a mythical ‘popular vote’. The presence of substantial voter fraud in the system, or rather the gaming of the system, renders the term meaningless. Anyone with more than a casual interest in politics knows and recognizes that in certain places the fraudulent voting frequently exceeds 100% of registered voters. Before you can sanely replace the EC, warts and all, you have to have reliable voter ID (as much as I hate it) and REAL teeth in the voter fraud laws, perhaps treating it as a capital offense (?)

    Otherwise Al Gore would just have ‘found’ more hanging chads for his unconstitutional 2000 challenge. And Newville, AL (pop 500, maybe) will decide the next President with their 78 million votes.

    Doubt me? Research ‘Landslide Lyndon’, Tammany Hall, Al Franken’s election, and dozens of other institutional cases of voter fraud. When you can fix the graveyard voting, vote buying, and other forms of voter fraud, come back and we’ll have a real discussion,

  48. In November 2012, there were Republican Attorneys General in most of the battleground states that determined the outcome of the 2012 presidential election:
    ? Florida?29 electoral votes,
    ? Ohio?18 electoral votes,
    ? Virginia?13 electoral votes,
    ? Wisconsin?10 electoral votes,
    ? Colorado?9 electoral votes,
    ? Pennsylvania?20 electoral votes, and
    ? Michigan?16 electoral votes.

    These seven battleground states with Republican Attorneys General together possessed 115 electoral Votes. President Obama won each of these battleground states by low-single-digit margins. In 2012, President Obama received only 64 more than the 270 electoral votes required for election.

    There were not prosecutions involving the tens of thousands of ballot boxes in these seven outcome-determining states in the 2012 presidential election.

    Were these seven Republican Attorneys General derelict in fulfilling their legal duty to prosecute crime in their own states?

  49. “The framers, surprising as it may be, were fallible humans groping in the dark”

    Haha, I love this double standard. Bring up the 2nd Amendment, and watch how fast the right-wing nutjobs come out in support of the founders as infallible geniuses who shouldn’t be questioned under any circumstances.

  50. There is no such thing as the Electoral College. There are only Electors.

    1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ??????? http://www.netjoin10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.