The electoral college system was designed to give people in rural areas just as much power as the people in cities. If we did raw numbers to vote in our president than a mass amount of people would lose their voice.
That was not the reason. The dispute started after a disagreement on whether states or the people should control the vote for the presidency. Benjamin Franklin, issued a compromise plan, that he intended as temporary, that created the electoral college. It was supposed to be reformed later, but never was. The theory, was that people would be electing state voters based on party preference, like the senate This is not true at all. No one loses their voice. Presidency is one way, so your voice sums up to (this guy) or (that guy). The problem with the system, is that many votes don't count in value. We would of had four different presidents if the electoral coolege was abolished..... - Grover Cleveland for two terms. - Andrew Jackson another term. - Tilden would of been president - Al gore would of defeated the horror that was Bush All that should matter is the people's raw vote. Summing up 300 million people to 400 representatives is stupid, when people clearly had voted in favor of the four above mentioned presidents. With all that said, the majority of US citizens want the electoral college gone. Their ownly fear is, that it's impossible for the GOP to win the popular vote given current demographics.
Without the electoral college, a candidate would only need to pander the the voters of three or four of the largest cities in America. This would leave most of the nations people basically voiceless.
there are ways to maybe tweak the existing formula to make the electoral college more indicative of the true will of the people. We could eliminate the electoral college votes each state gets for its senators and give each state only the number of electors equal to the number of their members in the house. THEN... we could make each elector represent one of their states congressional districts and they would be required to cast their vote for the candidate that won that district. just sayin'....
I get your point, but I voted No because the electoral college is one of the few things that prevent 'little' states like Rhode Island and Delaware from being overwhelmed by bigger states in general elections, because smaller states get more electors per capita.
States shouldn't have a say in the presidency. The people's raw vote is the only thing that matters. I accidentally voted no.
SO how is having a candidate who appeals to most of the people in the country win a bad thing? The current system leaves most voters out, no matter who I vote for, no matter if I vote or not, my vote is counting for the Democrat in 2016, because there is no way that my state will go Republican, likewise no Republican vote counts in New York or California, because they will go Democratic. That makes people stay home, a popular vote where every vote counts, gives everyone incentive to vote. And it makes policy follow the interests of the majority, instead of being twisted to appeal to battleground states....
The President should be elected by state governors and have strictly limited powers. The Senate should be elected by state legislatures. The HOR should be elected by the people at large by an IRV system. The state should be given as much sovereignty as is possible. The national government should be restricted to purely national priorities - such as national defense, resolving disputes between states (through the judiciary), and making treaties to be approved by the President and Senate. [hr][/hr] This vision of sovereignty everyone has of their nation? Yeah, move that to the states. Have as decentralized a system as is possible.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes! Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states. With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states. Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. 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. 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 5. In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined. 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. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most. Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander. Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%. Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions. - - - Updated - - - To change the number of electors in he Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. - - - Updated - - - 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. With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. 16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 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. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican. Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city. 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. Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't poll, organize, buy ads, and visit just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election. In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California. Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston. There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio. With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
The 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. 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. The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votesthat is, enough to elect a President (270 of 53. The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO 68%, FL 78%, IA --75%, MI 73%, MO 70%, NH 69%, NV 72%, NM 76%, NC 74%, OH 70%, PA 78%, VA 74%, and WI 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK 70%, DC 76%, DE 75%, ID 77%, ME 77%, MT 72%, NE -74%, NH 69%, NV 72%, NM 76%, OK 81%, RI 74%, SD 71%, UT 70%, VT 75%, WV 81%, and WY 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR 80%, KY- 80%, MS 77%, MO 70%, NC 74%, OK 81%, SC 71%, TN 83%, VA 74%, and WV 81%; and in other states polled: AZ 67%, CA 70%, CT 74%, MA 73%, MN 75%, NY 79%, OR 76%, and WA 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win. The bill has passed 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. NationalPopularVote Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Not sure if this is spammy advertising, or conveiniant insight. Remind PF to not let the bots out. Run along now buddy, you had your fun. I'll write a letter to National Popular Vote, and maybe they'll give you a commendation.
States have distinct histories, cultures and laws. I wouldn't want to live in the United States of California and New York (Texas would probably secede after consistently losing the vote 1/3). In other words, if you think the mean conservatives are bad now, you have no idea what it would be like if federal policy for less developed states was set based upon the interests of metropolitan areas. I've noticed something, people who want to do away with the electoral college tend to pay little or no attention to state, county or city governments, which have much more control over their lives. They don't understand what it means to live in a system of federalized states; they think that the Presidential election is of the greatest importance because they simplify things down to one leader. The metropolitan areas don't need help from the rural areas and if they claim that they do then there is a problem in that metropolitan area.
In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of wasted popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally: * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267 * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436 * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634 * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778 * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560 * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342 * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826 To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of Californias population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
National Popular Vote does not "do away with the Electoral College." With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it. The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens. The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again. During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states. The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. The 10 most rural states are ignored now. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%. 80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans. Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing. Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It 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 be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes. States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Unable to agree on any particular method, 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." 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).
I disagree and I think you know why. The minority population states cannot exert their influence over the majority population states because they are just too far into the minority, even with the electoral college. Yet without it, the majority states could definitely enforce their will upon the minority states. The electoral college implicitly limits the federal government's sway as an agent of the larger states and that is why the smaller states wanted to have it from the beginning. It's every bit as legitimate to have it today as it was in the past because there is no shortage of areas where the majority population states want to use the federal government to transform the minority states.
With National Popular Vote, we will continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states. 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). The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, 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 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. 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. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again. National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. 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 Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century. Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election. In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes. The current statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. 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 Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent. 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. With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes! Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%. Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
Simple math does not support your claim. California and New York alone would not determine the presidential election. Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. In 2004, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally: * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267 * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436 * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634 * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778 * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
The other statement wasn't factually accurate but it was not fallacious. Depending on whose number you use (and turn out) wining a simple majority in 14-20 states is all the is required to win the presidency in a straight popular vote. Since some states are solidly one way or the other, we instead have campaign focusing on "swing states" which vary from election to election. Winning a majority in any Congressional District is the US outside of Wyoming pretty much would negate the entire state of Wyoming's voice in a national popular vote system because they have fewer people than most CD's.. Beyond all that, there is the economy of scale. It is easier to reach more people in a single day in NYC or LA than in fly over country either in person or through advertising.
Direct democracy was rejected a long time ago for good reason. It leads to mob rule. Given the amount of vote fraud going on in US cities, the mob rule aspect of direct election would be further corrupted by fraud. At least with the current system much of the election is still more or less legal. In fact, the vote fraud we see obviates the rationale for the 17th Amendment. The direct election of Senators was a reaction to the corruption of the new York state legislature dominated by Tammanny Hall Democrats in the nineteenth century. With the fraudulent election of Al Franken in 2008, the "corruption" argument evaporates. You have simply substituted one corruption for another. The 17th eroded the power of the states and destroyed the balance of the Constitution.
(*)(*)(*)(*). I saw the thread title, clicked "yes", then realized the question was the other way around in the actual poll. Sub one from "yes" and add one to "no".
We are the United States of America, not the united people of America. The Constitution was designed to prevent any single power source from getting too much power (if followed, that is). States were meant to have some of the power, to keep it out of a centralized national government, and to keep the people (aka the majority) from getting too much power.
As the pre-eminent power source is the people (not acres, not dollars, not heads of cattle), the Constitution must have been designed to prevent the people from getting too much power. Which it was, of course.
