The electoral college

[vlyons]

The electoral college is an antiquated relic that is patently unfair. It would require a constitution amendment to replace it with a more democratic and directly elected POTUS. Seems the chances of that happening are slim and none. But are any current representatives or senators working on replacing it?

[Polybius]

1. It's here to stay

It's too hard to change it, 2/3rds majority in both houses and 3/4ths of the states. Some say the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is the answer, but I don't think it survives a Constitutional challenge and what good is it anyway? The only states that signed on are Blue states.

[Mysterian]

4. The electoral college is a fundamental flaw in our political system

We can't say, "It's too hard, we don't want to fix it."

[jimfields33]

6. we need 67 senators, 290 Representatives, and 38 states to change it.

It will be doable at some point. The states would be the hardest part. I think we have 19 states with both chambers democratic.

[Polybius]

11. "It will be doable at some point"

Maybe in 2167.

[jimfields33]

20. Sadly you aren't off in time.

[madinmaryland]

31. More likely 2776. If the country even exists.

[mvymvy]

55. No. States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws

before voting begins for how to award electors.
State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to guarantee the candidate who wins the most national popular votes wins the Electoral College.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, all votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 42 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

NationalPopularVote.com

[Hortensis]

93. THIS. Achievable democratizing effect to help offset the EC problem.

Those who don't like the EC should VOTE DEMOCRATIC to finish this job. States totaling 206 EC votes have passed it into law, need states totaling 65 more for it to become effective.

A move any state can make on its own is to replace winner-take-all allocation of its EC votes with proportional according to popular vote.

[mvymvy]

95. Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair "compromise" or solution

There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.

In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States 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),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere.

[Hortensis]

98. Yes, it'd be an intrastate democratization only. Nebraska and Maine allocate proportionally.

But put it out to show we have options other than extreme, antidemocratic steps like revolution or helpless complaining about the AC.

As you actually intimate:

Whenever it doesn't seem to make sense that Democrats have never done something that sounds good on its face, it means there's something we don't know (or it'd make sense) AND that there can be significant problems with taking that obvious course. Or we would have.

[mvymvy]

103. Maine and Nebraska do NOT apportion their electoral votes proportionally

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

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

It is not a fair “compromise” or solution.

In three of the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020, the winner of the most votes nationwide would not have won the Presidency if the congressional-district method had been applied to election returns.

Presidential campaigns are not attracted to a state by the congressional-district method, but, instead, only to the relatively few closely divided district(s) –if any - in the state.

Many districts in the US are gerrymandered to not be fair.
In 2022, only 10% of 435 were competitive.

Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.

When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century.

2016 was the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.

In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill.

In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected

52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.”

31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” --- Maine’s current method for awarding 2 of its 4 electoral votes

16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states and used in Maine to award 2 of its 4 electoral votes

Recent campaigns have paid attention to Nebraska’s closely divided 2nd congressional district (the Omaha area), while totally ignoring the rural and politically non-competitive 1st and 3rd districts.

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and 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 and April 2016.
In 2021, after Biden won 1 electoral vote, another Republican sponsored bill to change to statewide winner-take-all was introduced, again,
In 2021, a Republican redistricting proposal would cleave off Democratic-leaning northwest Douglas County from a Nebraska congressional district that has been won by presidential and congressional Democrats at various points over the past decade.

In 2023, another bill was introduce to strike language in existing state law that divides Nebraska’s electoral votes by congressional districts in presidential elections, effectively implementing a winner-take-all system used by nearly every other state.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

[Hortensis]

106. Well, states have the power to personalize as they choose. You're clearly committed

to a national popular vote, and no doubt one form.

My own passionate commitment is to representative, western liberal democracy itself, "government of, by, and for the people." But not to any one way to carry it out; situations vary and many governments can and will choose variations, as states are able to in allocating their EC votes. Flexibility within its basic principles and the power of citizens resident in the states to have their laws represent their wishes are both critical strengths. And potential dangers, of course.

On this topic, seems obvious to me from its brevity and lack of detail alone that our founding fathers intended to create a "living constitution" with flexibility built in. Even though meant for an entire nation made up of competing and cooperating autonomous states sharing sovereignty, and a real "eloquence" of attorneys from the various states were involved in its creation and ratification, the typical office procedure manual for a smallish business is far longer. Our personal auto policy far, far, far longer and incredibly more detailed.

[Zeitghost]

85. Nope

There will always be enough states that will be giving up power by ending the EC who won't kill it, no matter where their political leanings lie.

This isn't an inherently left/right ideological issue. If we controlled a bunch of small states and benefited from it politically as the Republicans do now, you wouldn't hear a peep about it on DU.

As it stands now, the biggest winners in the EC are half Blue:
 Wyoming
 Vermont
 District of Columbia
 Alaska
 North Dakota
 Rhode Island
 Montana
 South Dakota
 Delaware
 Maine

[Polybius]

10. I didn't say that it wasn't flawed

I just said that it's here to stay.

[Mysterian]

78. And I posted it must be fixed

Have a great day!

[yardwork]

89. What do you suggest?

There are a lot of flaws in our systems. I feel that we best choose important ones that also have a chance of success. Otherwise, we will not succeed at changing anything.

If you see a way to overturn the Electoral College, please share it.

[mvymvy]

90. The National Popular Vote bill

will guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC always wins the presidency.
Every vote in every state would matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.
State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote numbers in presidential elections, compared to individual (especially battleground) state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and recently, crimes and violence.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes
When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

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

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

NationalPopularVote.com

[yardwork]

91. Sounds great. The right wingers who control my state's legislature will never agree.

I do everything I can in every election to elect Democrats in NC, but the Republicans grab more and more power.

[Mysterian]

94. There are few flaws as fundamental as the electoral college

I suggest a constitutional amendment to change it. It is too important to just throw up our hands and say, "it's too hard, we can't fix it." Right now, Democrats should support a public education program describing why the electoral college is a relic that must be abandoned so that every person's vote counts in a presidential election. The constitution has been amended several times. Someday, an amendment will be possible. I would like to see our democracy survive as the founders intended - to change over time as needed.

What do you suggest, ignoring fundamental flaws in our democracy and saying it just can't be fixed? That is the mindset that will result in nothing being fixed.

[mvymvy]

96. State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed

to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

We also need to support election officials and candidates and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.

We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.

There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population;
[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.]

In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.

Instead, we need to support state legislators throughout the country who support the National Popular Vote bill.
It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
[Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws]
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

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 among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 42 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

NationalPopularVote.com

[onenote]

2. Rep. Cohen (D-TN) introduced a resolution to amend the constitution to abolish the electoral college

The most recent one I know of was introduced in 2021. It had 8 co-sponsors, was referred to committee and disappeared from view.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/14/cosponsors

[mvymvy]

56. There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments

to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population;
[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.]

In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.

Instead, we need to support state legislators throughout the country who support the National Popular Vote bill.
It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
[Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws]
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[onenote]

77. Yes. But the question I was answering was whether any "current" reps or senators were trying

to replace the EC.

[mvymvy]

82. There is no serious attempt by any current reps or senators to abolish the Electoral College

The RNC 2016 Platform
"We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and any other scheme to abolish or
distort the procedures of the Electoral College."
https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/static/home/data/platform.pdf

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population;
[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.]

In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.

Currently, State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill by simply again changing their state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

3. So what are the options for small states

to remain relevant? They truly become "flyover country" and are disregarded.

I mean, getting rid of the electoral college fundamentally changes the US Gov in that the states elect the President, not the voters.

How is it patently unfair? It's been this way for a really long time.

[LonePirate]

5. Small states are currently disregarded except for Nevada.

Last edited Wed Aug 23, 2023, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

In an all or nothing numbers game, small numbers matter less than big numbers.

The National Popular Vote Compact is the solution here as every vote counts.

[Celerity]

88. In order of population, these are the 5 smallest entities (2 districts, 3 states) actually contested

to any real degree for POTUS EV's

NE-2
ME-2
NH
NV
MN (was close in 2016, but I so hope is even more Blue now than it was un 2020, and stays that way from now on)

these are the remaining swing states in order of population

CO (barely now, it is pretty solid Blue)
WI
AZ
VA
MI
NC
GA
PA

11 states (10 if you remove CO, 9 if you also remove MN, both of which I am want to do), 2 districts in total

FL is no longer a swing state, and OH has not been one for ages

If Maine and Nebraska stopped splitting EVs (they SHOULD stop, as we are more likely to lose both NE-2 and ME-2 than to win both atm)

and if CO continues on the path to deep deeper and deeper Blue, plus MN stops flirting with Rethugs like it did in 2016

every election for POTUS will be down to (for the next 13 to 17 years or so I wager)

will come down to these 9 states (from smallest to largest again)

NH
NV
WI
AZ
VA
MI

NC The most Red of all of these for POTUS atm, as since we won it in 1964, we have only won it again in 1976 and in 2008, but it has been close in very election starting in 1992, except for 2000 and 2004, so I still put it as a swing state. That said, due to gerrymandering, it is deep Red at state legislature level, and post 2024, likely at US House level as well, as the new Rethug maps will likely take it from a 7-7 tie to a 10-4 or 11-3 Rethug advantage, which makes taking back the US House that much harder, especially if NY does not unfuck itself before then from the Cuomo-done decade of damage in his bullshit war on progs,his machinations cost us a net swing loss of 12 to 16 seats in 2022, grrrr)

GA
PA

in 2020 we won all but NC, so we are the ones at most risk from swing states atm, as other than NC, we can only come down from the 8 of 9 we won in 2020

[jcgoldie]

8. why would small states be less important?

Right now the only ones that matter are swing states. If it were a democracy everyone's vote would have equal weight and campaigning would reflect that rather than just happening in new hampshire, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania, arizona and nevada, etc.

[former9thward]

14. The campaigns would only be in big states where big margins could be produced.

It would not be worth the time and money to campaign in the small states.

[jcgoldie]

16. I don't think thats the case

Campaigns would focus on large media markets where they could get the most bang for their buck in terms of voter exposure but that has little to do with the size of states. The way it stands a bunch of counties in Wisconsin with dirt not people are more important to campaigns then communities with hundreds of thousands of people in states like CA or NY because the outcome there is predetermined.

[former9thward]

18. Well you just made the case that small states would not be part of the campaign.

Thank you. Also anyone who thinks it is just Republican states that would oppose this, there are many Democratic states which also would oppose it. States like Delaware, RI, Conn. Maine, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and others would oppose a change.

[jcgoldie]

25. no I didnt.

And you are demonstrably wrong that democratic states would oppose a national popular vote. Every state you listed has signed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[former9thward]

29. It is easy to sign things that don't mean anything.

In your post you complained WI gets attention while NY and CA do not. You want the big states to get attention. The idea that someone can campaign in all 50 states in the same way is not reality.

[Sympthsical]

34. California gets plenty of attention

Bop in, suck up money from Hollywood and Silicon Valley, bop out.

Every cycle.

We're a very popular people.

[mvymvy]

61. California's policy issues are ignored by presidential candidates

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Governance—not just campaigning—is distorted when presidential campaigns concentrate on just a few states. Sitting presidents contemplating their own re-election (or the election of their preferred successor) formulate public policy around the concerns of the handful of states that actually decide the presidency. 41 states voted for the same party in the most recent four presidential elections, and the number of closely divided battleground states has been shrinking from decade to decade.

In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states -- Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with 15% of US population and 43 electoral votes

38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.

Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important.

The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years.

Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions.

Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.

The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.

In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined,

This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic.

When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.

In 2020, there were more Republican votes in CA than Republican votes in Texas.
None helped Trump in any way.

In 2020 there were more Republican votes in 2 states, than Democratic votes in California.
5,890,347 Texas Republican votes
5,668,731 Florida Republican votes
11,559,078

11,110,250 California Democratic votes

On October 24, 2016, there were 19,411,771 registered voters in CA.

8,720,417 Democrats,
5,048,398 Republican,
4,711,347 No party preference.
931,609 Other

Trump got 4,483,814 CA votes. Clinton got 8,753,792 CA votes.

In October 2020, there were 5,334,323 Republicans in CA.

CA has 54 electors. 270 are and would still be needed to win.

5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

There are 5.3 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states. More than the individual populations of 28 states!

Trump got more votes in California than he got in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia combined.
None of the votes in California for Trump, helped Trump.

California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

The vote difference in California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

61% of an equally populous Republican base area of states running from West Virginia to Wyoming (termed “Appalachafornia”) votes were for Trump. He got 4,475,297 more votes than Clinton.
With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California and Appalachafornia will matter equally.

In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
About 62% Democratic

California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all Republican votes in California and every other state will matter.

The vote of every voter in the country (rural, suburban, urban) (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) in every state would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency.

CA enacted it with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate matter and count equally.

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

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

[jcgoldie]

44. "Sign things that dont mean anything"

That is bullshit. Those states did not join that compact because it doesnt mean anything. Democracy favors democrats. Minority rule favors republicans. It doesnt empower small democratic states when their will is subverted by antidemocratic institutions.

[brooklynite]

60. NY and CA will never get attention.

Whether you're using the Electoral College or a Popular Vote, both States will give the Democrats safe margins.

[former9thward]

63. Many analysts I have read disagree.

With a popular vote arrangement they say Democrats will try to roll up the margins in CA, NY and IL spending money and resources there. Republicans will do the same in states like TX, FL and probably OH. Smaller states that tend to vote reliably for either party will be left out in the cold because the margins just aren't there no matter what the turn out is.

[mvymvy]

67. Of COURSE they will

Every vote in every state will matter and count equally as 1 vote
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

The National Popular Vote 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 among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority.

NY and CA enacted it with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate matter and count equally.
On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

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

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

Math and political reality.
The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.
All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.
Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,
CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could win with less than 22% of the popular vote by winning the 12 largest states, despite losing 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states.

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 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). 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.

With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win.

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% R), 1,691,267
* New York (59% D), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% R), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% R), 426,778
* California (55% D), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% D), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% D), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) 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) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running.
Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now.
Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 4 of them.
Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.

[elocs]

37. In '16, Hillary never campaigned in person in the general election campaign even once.

Mistake. Now Wisconsin is an important swing state.

[mvymvy]

70. 4 remaining competitive battleground states

We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

We need to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
Every vote in every state would matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.
State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Presidential elections, campaigns, and governance are distorted by the concentration of attention on just a few states.

Before anti-democracy Republicans, and new voter suppression and election subversion laws, based on the Big Lie/Big Grift, the system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 5 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory.

The new presidential electoral map is more favorable to Republicans by a net six points.

The 2024 presidential race could be reduced to less than 15% of the US, in 4 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused - Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin -

Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were the top three most litigious states in 2022 in regards to elections.

234 Trump Article III judgeship nominees were confirmed by the US Senate

A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices (5 of the 6 “conservative” justices) were appointed by Presidents who first entered office after not winning the most national popular votes.

Moore v Harper sets “a version of judicial review that is going to give the federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court itself, the last word in election disputes." - Hasen

[mvymvy]

58. That doesn't make any sense

With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could win with less than 22% of the popular vote by winning the 12 largest states, despite losing 78%+ of the popular vote and 38 smaller states.

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 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

But, the political reality is that the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). 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.

With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter. Under a national popular vote, the margin of your loss within a state matters as much as the size of your win.

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% R), 1,691,267
* New York (59% D), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% R), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% R), 426,778
* California (55% D), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% D), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% D), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) 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) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Smart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running.
Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now.
Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 4 of them.
Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.

[vlyons]

17. Every vote would count, as POTUS would be directly elected by popular vote

State legislatures would have no say, except to certify the accuracy of votes from their state. Doesn't seem fair to me that Hillary could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.

The senate is not exactly fair either. The senate is where small states have equal say (2 senators) as big states, like Calif and Texas.

I'm sure there are a lot smarter people than me, who could propose a more electoral system.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

23. But that's not how the country is set up

POTUS is elected, forever, by the states, not the total population.

What's being proposed is nothing like how things have been since the founding, and there's a reason for this that has worked, forever.

[jcgoldie]

26. yes the reason is so it will be less democratic

The same reason the Dakotas have 2 senators each therebymaking the voting power of an individual in CA like 40 times less meaningful than in North or South Dakota.

The fact that "they've always done it this way" is not a valid justification.

[Igel]

33. It's done to make it less majoritarian.

The entire set up is to diffuse power and make sure that if there's a large change, there's a large majority in favor of it.

It's unfair to the majority, but fair to the minority.

[Voltaire2]

80. How is 'minoritarian' domination superior to 'majoritarian' domination?

[Voltaire2]

9. They would continue to be massively over-represented in the senate.

But why should geography be represented in preference to people?

[Think. Again.]

30. The options are...

...for the people in any size state to vote for the candidate they desire.

[Sky Jewels]

36. The small states have acreage, not population.

They shouldn't hold disproportionate power just because people live in rural areas.

[ecstatic]

72. But the current solution means the small states

have more say than states with millions of people in several cities. That's definitely not fair either. One person one vote. It's pretty simple. A smart politician will get votes anywhere he can, we can't assume all the small states will just be ignored.

[roamer65]

7. The only way the EC will end is the dissolution of the republic.

Certain red states are not going to give up the grift they have going peacefully.

[mvymvy]

54. We can guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC wins

the Electoral College AND the presidency.
Every vote in every state would matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.
State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
[Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws]
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

[MistakenLamb]

12. A Constitutional Convention is the likely only way to end the EC

And if Republicans still control more state legislators, they will replace voting for the Executive completely with something they will always control the outcome of

[Hortensis]

92. Yup, yup, yup! A constitutional convention would end liberal, progressive democracy as we know it.

And likely democracy itself, possibly replaced with an illiberal pretend version. RW power blocs have been working toward it for decades, just as they worked to take over SCOTUS for decades and now support The Defendant's attempt at a scary-authoritarian coup d'etat.

Some on the democracy-frustrated illiberal left also often express their eagerness for a constitutional convention to bypass the electorate and rewrite the constitution to suit them, magical thinking required for that last. But some'd vote with the right for the opportunity to kick over the one we have anyway, claiming virtue and necessity.

[mvymvy]

97. We can guarantee the winner of the most popular votes wins the Electoral College

State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[Wonder Why]

13. I applied for the Electoral College but even with a scholarship, I couldn't afford it.

[jcgoldie]

15. Much lower standards to be a fake elector actually...

...but there is the risk of future legal jeopardy...

[madinmaryland]

32. I got a full ride scholarship, but was not selected because I am a democrat in Ohio.

[LeftinOH]

19. Where you live shouldn't matter in a Presidential election. Full stop.

It would be absurd if the weight of a voter's power depended on one's home address in state-level elections for Senators or Governors; e.g. a vote for governor is exactly the same for someone living in a Manhattan high rise or a remote cabin in the Adirondacks.

The usual rebuttal in support of the Electoral College is some malarkey about "without the EC, California and New York would take all the votes and Democrats would always win" - which is nonsense. The fact that New York is 4th in population, and Texas & Florida (ranking 2nd and 3rd in population, respectively) are now at parity in numbers with CA and NY should end this tired old argument.

That, and the fact that states with small populations already get two Senators ought to be a sufficient balance.

Of course - nothing is going to change.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

24. But the fundamental fact is

that the country is not, and never was, a pure democracy.

The president is elected by the states, not the people - and it's not a bad thing.

[jcgoldie]

27. So when Donald Trump wins the presidency of Hillary Clinton with 3 million less votes...

Thats just fine right? Because dirt matters more than people. Thats the argument the republicans have been making for years.

[inthewind21]

39. First off

Trump didn't "win the presidency of Hillary Clinton" he won the 2016 election in which Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee. And to answer your question, yes it is fine. Because that is how our elections work. And have ALWAYS worked. Are there going to be a very lot of people unhappy about it. Absolutely. Just as there were the other FIVE TIMES it has happened. This is not the first time a candidate has won the election but NOT the popular vote. Screaming "it's not fair" then suddenly suggesting tossing or ignoring the constitution is also a common Republican tactic.

[jcgoldie]

43. Last i checked democrats favor more democracy in elections

The electoral college is an institution designed to make our presidential elections less democratic. “Of” was a typo… supposed to be “over”… obviously… making elections less democratic is a republican goal. I never said it was unfair. I said it was less democratic. I assumed we shared a common goal of democracy here perhaps I was mistaken.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

45. I don't understand what your problem is

The EC is set up to protect the minority rights of small states.

I thought that's what the (D) party is supposed to do - support the rights of minority populations.

Why should CA/NY and other big population states dictate policy to the rest of the US?

[jcgoldie]

46. "Protecting minority rights"

Does not mean giving conservatives in red states more electoral power than minorities in urban areas … just lol. The democratic party stands for equality and democracy. The electoral college subverts each of those things.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

48. "The electoral college subverts each of those things."

only because it tends towards (D) for the time being.

[jcgoldie]

49. No it doesnt

Wtf are you talking about?

[mvymvy]

62. State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed

to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

We need to support election officials and candidates and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.

It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
[Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws]
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

[brooklynite]

21. Answer: no.

I'm sure some progressives will advocate for it symbolically, but they all know it can't be overturned.

[Silent3]

22. How do you convince small states that gain extra power to give that power up?

How do you convince politicians elected under a system to change the system that they used to gain power?

Of course the "electoral college is an antiquated relic that is patently unfair." But that's far from enough to change things.

[mvymvy]

53. There is not a coalition of small states that functions politically

And they don’t necessarily have a lot in common.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
Every vote in every state would matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.

Previous attempts to reform (or remove) the Electoral College have been thwarted by southern states, not small states.

More recently, support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

The Wyoming Democrat’s 2022 plank calls for Wyoming to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. 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.

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.

The small states do not share a political tendency.

In the 25 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular vote and electoral vote have almost tied
In 2008 - 9.9 million versus 9.8 million popular votes
57 versus 58 electoral votes.

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.

In the 13 smallest states the Democratic and Republican popular votes and 59 electoral votes have almost tied.

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, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

[Bettie]

28. We could sidestep the EC

by increasing the number in the House of Representatives to be more representative of where people actually live.

That would at least bring it in line with the popular vote. Not a permanent solution, but at stop-gap.

[inthewind21]

40. That wouldn't help at all

The house of representative is already representative of population. (where the people actually live) Which is why Delaware has only 1 representative while California has 52. Yet BOTH states have 2 senators.

[Bettie]

47. But CA should have MANY more

they lost a rep seat this last time though, because it is set at a number that made sense back in 1929. Since then, our population has grown so much.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

79. They lost a seat because

They now have a lower percentage of the over US population than they did in the 2010 census.

It’s about proportion - we could have 10,000 reps, and CA would still, proportionally, have fewer reps than before .

[MerryBlooms]

74. Yeah, ima wtf on that suggestion.

[Zeitghost]

99. Of course it would help

Last edited Wed Aug 23, 2023, 09:40 PM - Edit history (2)

If there were 4350 members of the House instead of 435, it would increase the total EC votes from 538 to 4462 making the possibility of someone winning the EC but losing the popular vote almost impossible.

[mvymvy]

104. No. Not "almost impossible"

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."

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

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes.

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.

If no candidate wins the required Electoral College majority, Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

[The Revolution]

101. The EC is basically composed of two parts

The representative portion (House seats), and the unrepresentative portion (Senate seats). Increasing the size of the House increases the portion of EC votes that are representative of the population, so the EC results should more closely mirror the popular vote. It may not be perfect, but it is better and at least theoretically possible to actually enact.

[mvymvy]

105. The national popular vote winner would not be guaranteed to win

If no candidate wins the required Electoral College majority, Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

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."

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

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes.

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 National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

[mvymvy]

57. That would not guarantee the candidate with the most votes would win

It would not make every vote in every state matter and count equally in every presidential election.

The National Popular Vote bill will.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes

State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

[Bettie]

68. Yes, if we can get enough states to sign and honor the

NPV.

I also think that in congress states with larger populations should have more representation and that congressional districts should be smaller. More congresscritters won't entirely solve the problem, but it might mitigate it until something else could be done.

Unfortunately, getting those 65 more electoral votes is not likely to be easy. When the popular vote winner isn't the winner, it's always a Democrat who loses, states governed by Republicans will never agree to this.

[mvymvy]

84. Elections Matter. Electing candidates who respect voting rights, will lead to more states enacting.

The 2024 presidential race could be reduced to less than 15% of the US, in 4 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused - Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin - 260 electoral votes leaning Democratic and 235 leaning Republican.

In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill.

NY and CA enacted it with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate matter and count equally.
On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

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

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

The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 states, beyond the 17 enacting jurisdictions with 205, with 78 electoral votes (AR - 6 , AZ - 11, ME - 4, MI - 15, NC - 16, NV - 6, OK -7, VA - 13), including the Republican-controlled Arizona House and Oklahoma Senate.

[MerryBlooms]

73. No. And, that makes zero sense and will never happen.

[The Revolution]

100. This is the way

This is the most realistic way to mostly fix the problem. It's the easiest to implement and the hardest for the court to overturn.

[mvymvy]

102. Would not guarantee national popular vote winner

Would not make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections.

State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
Every vote in every state would matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

[budkin]

35. The GOP will never allow it to go away

They would literally never win a presidential election ever again.

[WarGamer]

38. Not likely to happen.

Just win Wi, Mi, Pa and Ga or Az and it's a done deal.

[Model35mech]

41. we could've ended up with Congress electing the president

Yes, there was the big economy states vs the little economy states problem with power equity between states and that really did need a solution that would earn ratification.

But we often forget that most people tend toward doing things the way they've already done them.

And the US was within living memory of having been part of England, where elites in parliament, not the people, elect the Prime Minister.

Many American influencers (ya, the rich guys) at the time of the writing of the constitution didn't trust the unsophisticated masses to be making decisions of such import. They thought that sort of decision making should be done by a sophisticated elite.

We very well could have ended up with an Elnglish solution, which in practice can have a majority party in control of Parliament limit choice of national leader to just that party. You may think the EC is not democratic but Parliment's solution is potentially very undemocratic.

Instead, we got the Electoral College, a procedure that was something of a compromise between direct election by the people and Parliament's solution.

[mvymvy]

69. In 2020 !

If as few as 11,000 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 12,000 in Georgia (16), and 22,000 in Wisconsin (10) had not voted for Biden, or partisan officials did not certify the actual counts -- Trump would have won despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million.
The Electoral College would have tied 269-269.
Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

Now we need to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC always wins the presidency.
Every vote in every state would matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.
State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

[Sympthsical]

42. It would increase regionalism, which would be bad for everyone

Set aside the culture war stuff for a moment and think about it through an economic lens.

Different regions of the country do not necessarily have the same economic interests and systems. What's good for California might be a policy that punishes, say, South Carolina.

What a direct popular vote does is shift federal attention to the most populous areas. People who do not live in the major cities will rightly begin to interpret that they are not having their interests represented or reflected in the Executive Branch of government. Politicians would go where they could suck up the most votes and run up lop-sided margins. They would pander to and reward these epicenters while ignoring vast swaths of the country.

This would not be a good thing for national cohesion.

The Electoral College does provide a semblance of balance. Congress is balanced. The Executive needs to be balanced as well.

In the 2022 elections, Republicans won the popular vote total for both the House and the Senate. The legislature is pretty balanced generally.

A lot of people say that want this direct democracy towards the Executive mainly because they perceive it will benefit themselves at this juncture. It will not always be so. There is no such thing as winning forever.

And when that worm turns, it'll be unpleasant. Just as it always is. The Republican party isn't dead. It's resting. And once Trump is gone - and he will be - we have no idea what that party will look like. I suspect not great. But they will win future elections. And we might not be super thrilled with how they go about doing that under a popular system. Think of things like culture war items and racism. Under a popular system, a very talented demagogue could do a lot of damage if they had a mind to. The electoral college actually discourages radicalism in either direction.

People want the populace unleashed. I don't. Have you seen us on social media? We're bad enough. I like checks on some things.

[mvymvy]

65. Wrong.

Math and political reality.
There aren’t anywhere near enough big city voters nationally. And all big city voters do not vote for the same candidate.

The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix) is less than 6% of the population of the United States.

Voters in the biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition.

2020 Census
65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people).
From 2020-2022, 2 million left those cities.

66,300,254 in rural America (20%)

Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population.

In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.

19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.


Look at how presidential candidates actually campaign today inside “battleground” states. Inside a battleground state, every vote is equal today and the winner (of all of the state’s electoral votes) is the candidate receiving the most popular votes. Every battleground state has big cities and rural areas. Thus, if there was any tendency toward de-emphasizing rural areas or over-emphasizing cities, it would be evident today inside the battleground states.

Ohio alone received almost 30% (73 of 253) of the entire nation’s campaign events in 2012.
● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 54% of the state’s population. They are Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. Had 52% of Ohio’s campaign events.
● The 7 medium-sized MSAs have 24% of the state’s population. They are Akron, Canton, Dayton, Lima, Mansfield, Springfield, and Youngstown. Had 23% of Ohio’s campaign events.
● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population. Had 25% of Ohio’s campaign events.

The 4 “battleground” states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa accounted for over two-thirds of all campaign events in 2012

In all 4 battleground states, presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—hewed very closely to population in allocating campaign events. Candidates campaigned everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas. There is no evidence that they ignored rural areas or favored big cities in an election in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes.

Not only is there no evidence that presidential candidates ignored rural areas or concentrated on big cities, it would have been preposterous for them to do so. There is nothing special about a city vote compared to a rural vote in an election in which every vote is equal. When every vote is equal, every vote is equally important toward winning.

[mvymvy]

66. In 2024, the presidential race may have only 4 competitive states

Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona as true battlegrounds, where all the focus of campaigns would be, with 15% of US population and 43 electoral votes

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Governance—not just campaigning—is distorted when presidential campaigns concentrate on just a few states. Sitting presidents contemplating their own re-election (or the election of their preferred successor) formulate public policy around the concerns of the handful of states that actually decide the presidency. 41 states voted for the same party in the most recent four presidential elections, and the number of closely divided battleground states has been shrinking from decade to decade.

38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.

Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important.

The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years.

Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions.

Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.

The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.

In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined,

This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic.

When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"
“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

Mitt Romney said at a fund-raising dinner in Boca Raton, Florida in 2012:
“All the money will be spent in 10 states, and this is one of them.”

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

12 states had 96% of the general-election campaign events (204 of 212) by the major-party presidential and vice-presidential candidates during the 2020 presidential campaign (Aug 28 to Nov 3).
All of the 212 events were in just 17 states. 33 states and DC did not have any general-election campaign events at all.
Pennsylvania got 47 general-election campaign events -- the most of any state and 22% of the total. Florida got 31 events -- 15% of the total. Together, Pennsylvania and Florida got 3/8 of the entire presidential campaign attention.

In the 2016 general election campaign
Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).

In 2016, Karl Rove advised Trump - “Look, you’re welcome to try and win [a state you can’t win], but every day you spend trying to win a state you can’t win is a day that a presidential candidate forfeits winning in a state like, in your case, Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin or Iowa.”

“You’ve got to—we had to focus on 270 and that meant that every day that we spent outside those states was a day that was wasted, unless we had either fundraising necessities or a national message that we needed to...” “Every day is vital, and we put all of our time and all of our energy and all of our resources into our battleground-state effort.”

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the 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).

In the 2008 campaign, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).

In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

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.


Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Issues of importance to 38+ non-battleground states have been of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager in 2016, said,
“When I took over as campaign manager in 2016, we did zero—let me repeat the number—zero national polls.”

When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

[liberalmediaaddict]

50. Nah we're stuck with it

Same as how we're stuck with a right wing extremist Supreme Court, Trump being nominated by Republicans every 4 years, the Dobbs ruling, gerrymandering and citizens united.

Conservatives have been ruthless the last 50 years playing the long game to control the courts and state legislators. The electoral college helps them achieve their ultimate goal of minority rule.

[mvymvy]

52. State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed

to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

NationalPopularVote.com

[mvymvy]

51. to enact the National Popular Vote bill

State legislators in states with 65 more electoral votes are needed .

We also need to support election officials and candidates and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.

We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.

There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population;
[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago.]

In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.

Instead, we need to support state legislators throughout the country who support the National Popular Vote bill.
It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
[Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws]
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power to choose laws before voting begins for how to award electors.

When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

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 among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 42 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

NationalPopularVote.com

[brooklynite]

59. The Compact will never pass...

Doesn't matter which States passed it in one chamber 5-10 years ago. In today's political environment, you won't get WI, PA, GA, NC, or AZ to pass it.

[mvymvy]

64. Elections matter. MN with a trifecta enacted it this year.

State legislatures and governors change.

We need to support election officials and candidates and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.

[MerryBlooms]

75. Not Going To Happen. Good grief, is this your political life theory your depending on?

If this cult theory was solid, it would have been done 50 or so years ago. Wow, that's some cray, send it to fox and newsmax. You got something there! Not kidding.

[mvymvy]

81. Elections matter. Fact. What laws are enacted depends on who we elect.

The bill was only introduced in 2006.

Cult theory?

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. 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.

Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022.

Newt Gingrich: “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.”

We need to support election officials, candidates, and lawmakers who consistently and aggressively support voting rights and respect election results and facts.
This didn’t use to be controversial.

One person, One vote. The candidate with the most votes would win the Electoral College and the presidency.

We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.

[MerryBlooms]

86. If you and Newt Gingrich had a leg to stand on, the EC would.

be a thing already voted on. This is wishful thinking, and no where discussed in serious politics. Let us know when President Biden pushes the Dems for it, and the House starts seriously bringing bills forth. This isn't going anywhere, and our efforts need to be spent on getting more Democratic legislation and reps elected, than energy spent on this nonsense.

[mvymvy]

87. The bill will take effect when enacted by STATES with 65 additional electoral votes

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 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.

The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

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.

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.

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

STATES with 205 electoral votes have enacted the bill.

The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 additional states with 78 electoral votes (AR - 6 , AZ - 11, ME - 4, MI - 15, NC - 16, NV - 6, OK -7, VA - 13), including the Republican-controlled Arizona House and Oklahoma Senate.

Of COURSE, We need to support election officials and candidates and lawmakers of all parties who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.

Nobody is voting on the EC. The EC will continue to elect the President
STATES are replacing STATE LAWS for how to award their electors.
The DNC, US House, and US Senate have nothing to do with STATES enacting the bill.

When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to choose how to vote.

States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again replacing their state’s law.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote numbers in presidential elections, compared to individual (especially battleground) state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and recently, crimes and violence.

If as few as 11,000 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 12,000 in Georgia (16), and 22,000 in Wisconsin (10) had not voted for Biden, or partisan officials did not certify the actual counts -- Trump would have won despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million.
The Electoral College would have tied 269-269.
Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

In 2016, Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes.
Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Presidential elections, campaigns, and governance are distorted by the concentration of attention on just a few states.

Before anti-democracy Republicans, and new voter suppression and election subversion laws, based on the Big Lie/Big Grift, the system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 5 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory.

The new presidential electoral map is more favorable to Republicans by a net six points.

The 2024 presidential race could be reduced to less than 15% of the US, in 4 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused - Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin

Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were the top three most litigious states in 2022 in regards to elections.

234 Trump Article III judgeship nominees were confirmed by the US Senate

A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices (5 of the 6 “conservative” justices) were appointed by Presidents who first entered office after not winning the most national popular votes.

Moore v Harper sets “a version of judicial review that is going to give the federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court itself, the last word in election disputes." - Hasen

[Xolodno]

71. Don't believe it can done away with.

Right now it gives the GOP power, so its a non starter. And should tides change, the Democratic party not be rid of it.

There was some talk about apportioning electors to how much the candidate won population wise. With the two senator electors going to the popular state vote winner. That would make portions of California, eastern Oregon and Washington suddenly in play and eliminate the blue wall. Likewise, population centers such in some red states would also come into play.

But then you have to mount a 50 state campaign and how much money suddenly becomes even more important. And thus smaller and perhaps better politicians are squeezed out.

What really is needed first, campaign finance reform, super PAC's, dark money, etc. is really throwing a monkey wrench into the machine. If you get that fixed, then electoral college reform becomes easier.

[mvymvy]

83. No state has talked about apportioning electors to how much the candidate won population wise

with the two senator electors going to the popular state vote winner.

Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.

Proportional awarding of all or any electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution.

There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award all of their electors proportionally.

In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States 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),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

The current Electoral College system increases ad spending in typical presidential election

With National Popular Vote “. . . advertising would indeed be spread more evenly across states. Total spending levels would either decrease or increase depending on the contestability of the popular vote. If it had been used during the extremely closely contested 2000 election (Al Gore vs George W. Bush), spending would have been 13 percent higher than it actually was. On the other hand, it would have dropped 54 percent during the more clear-cut 2004 elections (John Kerry vs George W. Bush). How much funding candidates have available, and the actual cost of advertising, influences how much will be spent during a campaign.

"These results suggest that the Electoral College greatly increases advertising spending in typical elections," says Gordon.”
"With a direct vote during a typical election, one would either see substantially less advertising spending or a substantial change in other candidate strategies, such as their policy positions," adds Hartmann.
http://scienmag.com/presidential-elections-electoral-college-increases-ad-spending-in-typical-election/

When every voter matters equally throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote . . .

[RANDYWILDMAN]

76. the senate and electoral college

both big screw ups by the forefathers, but they would say we have ways to fix but NOT really the things they put in place work directly against democracy.

Idaho senators can easily negate the senators from California which should not be the case and the limits of the electoral college keep putting the SAME swings state in play.

During electoral season those swing/ battleground states get way too much attention and settled states get very little