Switch by 22,856 Voters Would Have Defeated Biden -- Despite Nationwide Lead of 5,346,780

[William Seger]

An email from the National Popular Vote organization shows why we must abolish the Electoral College or defeat its power with the National Popular Vote bill:

A switch by 5,495 voters in Arizona, 7,087 in Georgia, and 10,274 in Wisconsin would have defeated Joe Biden in last week's presidential election -- despite Biden's (growing) nationwide lead of 5,346,780.

Each of these 22,286 voters were 234 times more important than the 5,346,780.

Under the current state-by-state "winner-take-all" system of electing the President, all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Biden would not have the 270 electoral votes needed for election without the 37 electoral votes from these three states.

Near-misses are common under the current winner-take-all system. In 2004, a switch of 59,393 in Ohio would have given John Kerry a majority of the Electoral College -- despite President George W. Bush's nationwide lead of 3,012,171.

And, in 2016, a switch of 5,353 votes in Michigan, 11,375 in Wisconsin, and 22,147 in Pennsylvania would have given the Presidency to the winner of the national popular vote, instead of Donald Trump.

The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Please tell your state legislators to pass the National Popular Vote bill.

[yardwork]

1. Our system is undemocratic.

[TexasBushwhacker]

4. Yup. We elect the most powerful person on the planet

with swing voters in swing states. Simply ridiculous.

[yankee87]

12. Tyranny of the Minority

We are letting states that have more cattle than people have a way outsized power in relation to their population. I wish we could have a one person, one vote, but I don't know if that will ever happen.

[David__77]

2. I was concerned about that.

I was concerned that Biden would lose electoral college while winning national vote by a decent amount. CA accounts for more than three points of Biden’s national lead. Before election I was concerned Biden’s votes would be suboptimally distributed across states. I’m glad that that didn’t happen.

[dawg day]

6. Ron Brownstein said in a podcast that Dems will soon lose the EC

Even when they win popular vote by 5%.

[David__77]

8. That sounds right.

The danger is losing PA, MI, and WI before TX switches Democratic.

[DownriverDem]

14. Michigan

is totally in the Biden camp. Our electors are Dems pledged to the winner which is Biden. This is pure crap.

[former9thward]

17. I believe that poster was talking about in future elections, not this one.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. What podcast?

I would be interested in listening to this

[Rstrstx]

28. AZ, GA, and NC need to be critical battleground states in upcoming years

And leave FL and TX for the long term, they’re very expensive (unless Trump’s relatively high Hispanic support turns out to be a one-off).

AZ, GA and NC can make up for lost electoral votes in PA, WI and MI. MI was the true fluke of 2016, it has since reverted back to a number you’d expect. But PA and WI were as tight as last time. It could be the tightness was more of a Trump thing rather than a long term red shift, I don’t know.

I think FL and TX will be blue/purple by the time Republicans actually start winning the rust belt states regularly. It wouldn’t be a shock if TX flips first; in spite of a drop in Hispanic support it’s still moving in the right direction (-9 in 2016 vs -5.7 in 2020). But Republicans smell blood in the water in FL, it’s the only large Sunbelt state that is moving away from Democrats.

[joshcryer]

30. I was honestly expecting that to happen.

But in this climate cynicism is sort of necessary for my sanity.

Glad it turned out the way it did.

[Bengus81]

3. It's decades past time to end that ridiculous electoral vote..........

Everyone else from State and local Judges,State Rep and Congress are in office by the majority vote of the people, not by some BS system that says a Presidental winner takes it in a State despite winning only by a few thousand votes.

[young_at_heart]

5. Congress needs to fix this

The system is not equal for both parties!

[StarfishSaver]

7. Congress can only fix it with 2/3 majority vote in the House and Senate

Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen any time soon.

[Klaralven]

10. That suffices to propose an amendment. 38 of 50 states then have to ratify it.

Which will never happen.

[enough]

9. Horrifying. NT

[BeyondGeography]

11. The whole thing is a ticking time bomb

To borrow Chris Hayes’ language last night.

[Lonestarblue]

13. We need to win more governorships and state houses.

We can’t pass the National Popular Vote without that. Another thought I had is that each state should allocate its electors by the votes in the state. So instead of winner take all, which essentially nullifies millions of votes, the electors would be split by the percentage of each party’s vote. That would seem fairer even than the National Popular Vote.

I read recently that Tom Perez is not running again for head of the DNC. The article writer seemed to think that Jaime Harrison was a shoo in. He would probably be good, but really, who delivered Georgia for us this year? I think Stacey Abrams should be the new DNC head if she wants it. She would be great, and it’s time to reward black women for their leadership within the Democratic Party. We need that 59-state plan to start targeting and winning state elections.

[moonscape]

20. She seems to want to run for governor again n/t

[bucolic_frolic]

15. Electors were designed to protect the nation with wisdom from elders

but the EC has been thwarted by parties and monied interests. We came that close to 2 terms of the worst-suited politician in our history? Our ability to sleep soundly is temporary.

2016 was not supposed to happen. Elections are not supposed to be decided by last minute sways of emotion that form public opinion.

I think these extended election periods - early voting, mail-in, absentee - are a check on wild emotion.

But also, there was a time when Senators were not elected by the people but were appointed by state legislatures. Yet even direct election is now entrenched. You can't oust a Senator with $90 million.

Half of Kentucky Democrats didn't vote. What's up with that?

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Alternatively, we need to populate and grow our blue states

Nothing like home gigs, tax incentives, tolerance, quality of life to attract Democrats.

[former9thward]

19. You are arguing against history.

People have been moving away from what we call blue states for decades. Going from the NE to the South and West. That is why the NE has lost electoral votes and the South and West have gained them.

[dalton99a]

18. Kick

[RANDYWILDMAN]

21. Sickening, what a joke our system is..

so many small blue area's on the map represent sooooo many damn people.

[MustLoveBeagles]

22. K&R

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. The EC worked for us this year

but the Republicans would have been SOL in just about every Presidential Election this century (so far) except for 2004(?) and even further back to 1992(?) if we had a Popular Vote system.

[NickB79]

25. That's what makes me worry about 2024

This election was WAY too close in the swing states.

[William Seger]

26. And if you don't live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter

... unless and until your state somehow becomes a swing state. It's even far more undemocratic than it appears on the surface.

[Dem2]

27. I think there should be one "popular vote" elector from each state

The winner of the popular vote nationwide would receive 50 EVs - one for each state in the union.

This would make it '588' total, 294 win.

I think this would make it much less likely that the winner of the popular vote would lose the electoral college.

[Initech]

29. The Electoral College is bullshit.